Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
1. Employment Act 1988
2. Scottish Development Agency (Oban South Pier) Act 1988

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 9 June

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)

FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)

NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL
(By Order)

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE TOWN MOOR BILL (Lords)
(By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 9 June

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [11 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 9 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Harland and Wolff

Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met representatives of Harland and Wolff; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the chairman of Harland and Wolff on 30 March. I most recently met the chairman on 10 May, when we discussed progress and the company's forward plans.

Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Minister for that answer. What discussions has he had with representatives of the Harland and Wolff shipyard about the Ultimate Dream cruise liner project? What is his thinking on the matter, given its crucial significance to the future of the yard and Northern Ireland manufacturing bases?

Mr. Viggers: I accept that it is an extremely important project for Harland and Wolff and for Northern Ireland generally. It is, however, at a conceptual design stage and has not been comprehensively costed. When we receive the costings we shall give the project careful and sympathetic consideration. It is too early to say what the Government's decision will be.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Can the Minister think of any other shipbuilding nation that levels abuse and insults at its potential customers? Does the Minister have any remarks for those—sad to say, some of his colleagues are among them—who try to equate the shipowner Ravi Tikkoo with John De Lorean? Has he or his Department taken any steps to assure that shipowner that his proposal will be given a fair run?

Mr. Viggers: I am baffled by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The relationship between the Government and Harland and Wolff is cordial. I am not aware of any comment derogatory to Mr. Tikkoo being made by the Government or any of my colleagues. From everything that I have heard, he has an outstanding business reputation.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the opportunity to raise further issues relating to Harland and Wolff in the Adjournment debate tomorrow, and I look forward to his contribution.

Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister confirm, for those who doubt the ability of Harland and Wolff to cope with such a major order, if it is fortunate enough to obtain it, that it is willing and has the expertise and co-operation between management and work force and that redundancies have slimmed down the yard to make it one of the most efficient in the United Kingdom? Will he reiterate his Department's willingness to give such support as may be required to ensure the continuance of shipbuilding in Belfast for the benefit of Northern Ireland and many companies on the mainland, which have written to those of us who have an


interest in the matter seeking our support to ensure that their work forces are maintained in employment on the mainland?

Mr. Viggers: I welcome the recent flexibility in the work force at Harland and Wolff. While we have been left in no doubt about the project from the representations made by union leaders, politicians and others in Northern Ireland, it would be premature to comment, as we have not received the detailed costings and do not know what subsidy, if any, will be required if the ship is to proceed.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am sure that we all wish Harland and Wolff well in its search for work in the difficult merchant shipbuilding market. That market is not difficult only for Harland and Wolff, as I am sure the Minister appreciates. Can he assure the House that the Government will not put subsidies into Harland and Wolff in excess of what is allowable under the sixth EC directive? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no question of taking merchant yards in mainland Britain out of shipbuilding or of negotiating with our European partners for additional subsidies for Harland and Wolff?

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman has been an assiduous questioner on this subject. I reiterate that the sixth EC directive, limiting merchant shipbuilding subsidy to 28 per cent., applies to Northern Ireland, and the United Kingdom Government comply with that. On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it would not be inconsistent with Government policy to do as he says.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister accept the perceived wisdom in the shipping industry that shipbuilding is due for an upturn in the 1990s and that Harland and Wolff is ideally placed to take advantage of it? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Harland and Wolff must survive into the 1990s, so Government aid to the yard will continue to be necessary?

Mr. Viggers: There has been speculation and informed comment that there might be an upturn in the world shipbuilding market in the early 1990s and thereafter. There was similar comment throughout the 1980s and, in each case, there was speculation that the upturn might come in two years' time. We shall study the position carefully, but will look primarily at the costings of the ship to ascertain whether any subsidy is required of us. We do not even know whether one will be required or its size. When we have the facts we shall make a decision, based on the best interests of all the people in Northern Ireland.

Social Fund Loans

Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in the Province have been refused social fund loans since 11 April.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): Between 11 April 1988 and 29 April 1988—the last date for which information is available—247 applications for social fund loans were refused.

Mr. McKay: Is the Minister aware that, because of the higher cost of living and substantially higher fuel costs in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, the number and amount of single payments in Northern Ireland are almost double those in the United

Kingdom? In view of those facts, will the hon. Gentleman implement the 1984 parity report and establish a fuel benefit for the poorer families in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Needham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He was right to say that there is greater deprivation in Northern Ireland and, therefore, more families rely on income support, family credit and so on than in the rest of Britain. Nevertheless, there are many poor families in this country who must pay high fuel costs. The parity policy which we adopt in Northern Ireland has always proved to be beneficial. It is proving beneficial at the moment, because the new premium from income support applies favourably to those who have large families, of which there are proportionately more in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister keep in mind the fact that the electricity tariff in Northern Ireland is set at the maximum of the levels in the rest of the United Kingdom, so Northern Ireland people are not on all fours with the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Needham: We keep that point in mind, but there are swings and roundabouts. Because the premium is especially targeted towards families, particularly those with children, the new overall effect is favourable to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member should bear that in mind.

Mr. McGrady: Is the Minister aware of the devastating effect of the new social security regulations on the poorer sector of Northern Ireland? Is he aware that in South Down alone there were 788 applications for single payments in April 1987, and that in April 1988 there were 189 applications under the social fund—a reduction of 76 per cent.? Is the hon Gentleman aware that there are backlogs in some minor offices of up to 500 applications under that fund, consisting of unprocessed or unlikely to be processed applications? How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile those statistics with his statement:
The majority of claimants are likely to have gained or not suffered losses in terms of their benefits"?

Mr. Needham: I accept that there are fewer claims under the social fund at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman compares the figures for March last year with those for March this year, for example, he will find that there were many more claims under the single payments scheme in March this year because it was the last month before the new system was introduced. One would therefore expect the position to be as it is. I am sure that once the backlog of single payments has been cleared, as it will be, the number of claims under the social fund will increase.

Rev. Martin Smyth: In a week when there has been talk about the moral high ground, will the Minister accept that perhaps some of the reaction in Northern Ireland to the social fund and social security regulations is muted because many people there believe that godliness with contentment is great gain. Nevertheless, there is an obligation on the Government as well as others to care for the widow and the fatherless in their affliction. The fact that there are needy in England does not mean that the needy in Northern Ireland should not be looked after, too.

Mr. Needham: I have accepted that deprivation and unemployment in Northern Ireland are significantly greater on average than in the rest of the United Kingdom. That does not alter the fact that because we are targeting the benefits more specifically at families in low-paid work


and families with children—[Interruption.] Hon. Members find the matter humorous, but we estimate that in Northern Ireland £43 million more will be spent in social security provision this year than last year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Travel Bursary Scheme

Mr. Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of young people who will benefit from his recently announced travel bursary scheme; and what is the timetable for its implementation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I anticipate that between 24 and 30 young people, selected equally from across the religious divide, will benefit from the Spirit of Enniskillen bursary scheme each year. The first applications will be considered in the autumn of 1988 with the first visits being undertaken in 1989.

Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for that information and applaud the initiative. Will he tell the House a little more about this unique scheme? What does he hope it will achieve? I hope that it will promote the example and spirit set by Mr. Gordon Wilson in the wake of the horrific tragedy at Enniskillen last year.

Dr. Mawhinney: The purpose of the scheme is to enable Catholic and Protestant young people to travel together around the world, to learn about each other and to learn how others are living across divides. My hon. Friend mentioned Mr. Wilson. We hope that the awards will be imbued with the spirit of forgiveness that he exemplified and the spirit of coming together evident among the people of Enniskillen after that horrific event. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that Mr. Gordon Wilson has agreed to be one of the judges in the first year of the award.

Prisoners (Release Statistics)

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people sentenced to serve prison terms at the Secretary of State's pleasure in Northern Ireland have been released, and under what terms, since February 1987.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under what terms prisoners serving sentences in Northern Ireland at the Secretary of State's pleasure are released; and how many have been released since February 1987.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Fifteen such prisoners have been released since February 1987. The licence in these cases remains in force indefinitely, and may be revoked at any time if this course seems necessary in the public interest. The licence may also include specific conditions, but no such conditions were included in any of the 15 cases.

Mr. Mullin: I welcome the progress that has been made so far. Is the Secretary of State prepared to consider extending the review to people—such as Private Thain—who are over the age of 18 but pose no further threat to society?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because in much of the discussion of this matter there has been scant recognition of the real progress that has been made or of the fact that there has been a significant reduction in the number of those being detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure by virtue of having committed crimes while under the age of 18. We seek to consider sympathetically those dragged into or implicated in terrorist crime at a very young age. That is one of the criteria that we take into account. We are also considering reviewing other sentences.

Mr. Bennett: Do the same conditions apply to people who committed offences in Northern Ireland but were convicted in England and are now serving their sentences in Northern Ireland? I refer especially to Shane Paul O'Docherty, who has now served 10 years of a sentence, and clearly comes into the category that the Secretary of State has referred to. He was drawn into terrorist activities at a very young age, but is now repentant of his activities and should be released.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not discuss individual cases in the House. I am aware of the significant number of representations that have been made on behalf of that prisoner.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, and also what the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said about Private Thain. However, is it not the case that none of the prisoners whom my right hon. Friend has released has returned' to crime, which is in contrast to such cases as two of the three people killed in Gibraltar who had—under the remission system—served sentences of imprisonment and returned to the IRA ranks? Will my right hon. Friend look at the question of remission? Will he also look with vigiliance and sympathy at those cases of persons detained at his pleasure?

Mr. King: I confirm the first part of my hon. Friend's comments. My understanding is that none of those who were detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure, and then released, have been convicted of further offences. I understand the worry about remission and the re-involvement of people in crime. It is a matter of concern to us.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Secretary of State tell us how many released prisoners and how many who remain in prison were imprisoned for crimes committed for Loyalist or Nationalist terrorist organisations? Does he agree that many people in prison—in places like the Maze—are still under the influence of those terrorist organisations? Would it not be a good idea to move those people as soon as possible to the new prison, where the influence of terrorist organisations has diminished?

Mr. King: I shall give the exact figures to the hon. Gentleman of the division between the Loyalist terrorist organisations and the Republican terrorist organisations. However, I share his anxiety about the influence of those terrorist organisations that continues within the prisons. I am aware that a number of people in prison would dearly like to break free of such influences. I am very conscious of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Mr. Alton: I welcome what the Secretary of State has told the House, but will he say how many cases he is actively reviewing? Will he look again at the mixed wings


inside prisons, such as the Maze, and the incentives that are given to people to leave paramilitary wings to go into the mixed wings and be weaned away from terrorism and the terrorist organisations?

Mr. King: The House is aware that I am at this moment considering whether to conduct a further special review of prisoners who remain detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure. However, I have no comment to make on that, as no decision has been made. The hon. Gentleman is aware of our policy on moving people into mixed wings. We are anxious to promote it. We are aware that one of the tragedies of Northern Ireland is the number of people who find it difficult to escape the intimidation and the threats that the terrorist organisations impose on their members. One of the most unpleasant aspects of the present situation is the number of appallingly vicious punishment shootings and beatings that are taking place. That is clear evidence of the intimidation that is going on.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that there is support in both sections of the community for the release scheme? Will he also keep in mind that if these prisoners had been of age and had been sentenced in the courts, many of them would have been freed long ago? It is unfair that, because they were then under-age, they are now serving long stretches of imprisonment, whereas if they had been over age, they would already have been released. What the right hon. Gentleman has done is welcome, but we should like him to go further and consider the proposition that I have put to him about the length of sentences.

Mr. King: I am aware of the support from both sides of the community. As we know, the prisoners in question come from both extremes of the community. I know that that concern is widely shared.
I do not accept in full the hon. Gentleman's point, which could be widely misunderstood, because whether those prisoners receive life sentences or are detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure—both categories are reviewed—the criteria of appropriate sentencing in terms of retribution and the risk to the public of release are taken into account in similar ways.

Pupil Tests

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations he has received opposing his proposals for the compulsory testing of pupils from (a) pupils, (b) parents and (c) teachers.

Dr. Mawhinney: The period for comment on the Government's proposals does not end until 10 June 1988. It would not, therefore, be appropriate or meaningful at this stage to attempt an analysis of the responses received so far.

Mr. Fatchett: I hope that the Minister will publish the analysis that he makes, unlike his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in relation to the Education Reform Bill. Do the Government intend to publish the figures for the results of compulsory testing at the age of seven?

Dr. Mawhinney: The consultation paper offers the people of Northern Ireland the option of testing at either seven or eight. I await with interest the responses of the people of Northern Ireland on this issue.

Mr. Kilfedder: The Minister deserves congratulations for the commendable, albeit limited, moves to urge religious integration in schools in Northern Ireland. However, when he is considering criticisms of his proposals, will he bear in mind that schoolchildren also have human rights to an education which is full in every sense of the word and which includes the right of mixing, learning and playing together with children of another religion or of no religion?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his earlier comments. I entirely agree with him. One of the document's central proposals is to provide an option for parents who wish and choose voluntarily to have an education system in which their children can be educated in the same classroom as children from the other side of the community. There are a growing number of such parents and I look forward to seeing that fact reflected in the responses to the document.

Ms. Mowlam: Will the Minister please respond to a recent report of the Northern Ireland Council for Educational Research, which contains a section on compulsory testing and shows clearly that, for one in six pupils, there is a mismatch between their transfer results at age 11 and their performance at 16? Furthermore, will he tell the House what there is in his consultative document to alter that mismatch and, therefore, the future of many children in Northern Ireland?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am sure that, having read the document, the hon. Lady will remember that two options are available for assessment and testing at age 11. One offers to substitute teacher assessment, together with assessment and testing marks at age 11 in English, mathematics and science, for the present verbal reasoning 11-plus test. Again, I look forward to receiving responses on that issue.

Mr. Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that the regular testing of children will be of considerable benefit to parents in monitoring the progress of their children in school and the performance of the schools that they attend?

Dr. Mawhinney: I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only will that be of considerable assistance to parents in determining how the education of their children is progressing, but it will enable us to determine much earlier in the life of our young people why, at present, almost one in four of those who leave our education system at the age of 16 have no recognised qualifications whatsoever.

Eastern Health and Social Services Board

Mr. Sean Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the chairman of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Boyes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the chairman of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Needham: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met the chairmen of the four health and social services boards on 9 March 1988. I plan to meet the chairman of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board again shortly at the 1988 accountability review.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the decision by Mr. John Simpson to step down as chairman of the Eastern board is a telling reflection of the impossible task that the boards are now facing in trying to maintain services but keep within the cash limits imposed by the Government?

Mr. Needham: No, I do not. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Simpson and I are at one in our desire to have an efficient and properly funded Health Service in Northern Ireland. Mr. Simpson has been vice-chairman for two years and chairman for four at a time of considerable upheaval, change and difficulty, and I believe that it is now time to bring in a new chairman who will be able to take on the difficult management problems that still face the board.

Mr. Boyes: Does the Minister recognise that, because of financial cuts, facilities, services and maintenance are rapidly being run down? In addition, hospitals could be closed unless the Minister urgently comes up with more cash for the Eastern Health and Social Services Board. Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that more cash will be forthcoming in the near future?

Mr. Needham: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise for a moment. There is an increase in health spending in Northern Ireland this year of £62 million, adding up to a total of £873 million, which is £557 per head and a 22 per cent. real increase since 1979. In the Eastern health board area this year there are new developments of £2·135 million. We have an excellent Health Service, and it will continue to be an excellent service that is properly funded by the Government.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Having sacked the present chairman of the Eastern board, is the Minister aware of the pleasure throughout the people's Eastern board area that he has not found another yes-man from the area to act as chairman and has had to look outside it to find a chairman to act as his henchman?

Mr. Needham: That is an astonishing allegation. The next chairman of the Eastern board is the present vice-chairman, and before the right hon. Gentleman makes comments about the integrity and position of the new chairman, he should get his facts right.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is it correct to say that the outgoing chairman of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board has warned the Minister and the Department of Health and Social Services that as a result of Government cuts there will be drastic reductions in the service available to people in the board's area, and that, further, consultants, doctors, nurses and ancillary worker representatives have all protested to the Minister? When will he respond to the people's demands?

Mr. Needham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, of the amount of rationalisation and savings required of the Eastern health board this year—£7·6 million—£5·2 million has been found by the board with no reduction in services in the acute sector. Also, there are plans for £2·135 million

worth of new developments. I am sure that the Eastern board will find the remaining funds it is looking for within its budget of hundreds of millions of pounds. I regret that so many hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland continue to denigrate the excellent Health Service there, which has adequate levels of funding.

Small Businesses

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further steps he plans to take to encourage small businesses.

Mr. Viggers: The Government continue to encourage the development of the Provinces's small business sector through a range of financial, advisory and training measures, which is unique to Northern Ireland. Government support to the Local Enterprise Development Unit was increased by £4·25 million in the past two years and I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the unit has recently published its annual results, which show a record level of job promotions.

Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that while some of the larger firms in Northern Ireland depend increasingly on single big orders, it is more important than ever to encourage the small firms sector, which is probably the only way of solving the unemployment problem in areas such as west Belfast and Bogside? What steps has he taken to increase international awareness of the need to encourage small firms in the Province?

Mr. Viggers: We have devoted a great deal of effort to encouraging smaller business with a wide range of programmes. I am delighted to say that the success of Northern Ireland in this sector has been recognised by the decision of the European Community to hold the first ever enterprise convention in Northern Ireland. About 300 delegates from 20 countries have expressed an interest in the conference in September-October already, and we hope that more will follow their example.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Is the Minister aware of the seeming inconsistency of the Local Enterprise Development Unit when it allocates grants? Some firms that seem to be good applicants are turned down, and other firms that should, perhaps, be refused grants are given not only one grant but other grants. Will the Minister please examine the matter and rectify it?

Mr. Viggers: The Local Enterprise Development Unit is independent and responsible for its own decisions. Any question relating to the acceptance or refusal of grants should initially be addressed to the chairman of LEDU, as it is called. However, if the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, perhaps he will draw it to my attention.

Security

Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation.

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation.

Mr. Tom King: Since I last answered questions in the House, one soldier has been killed and four civilians have been murdered in sectarian attacks. Three of the civilians were murdered and nine were injured in a brutal and indiscriminate gun attack in a bar close to Belfast city centre. The period has also seen a continuation of particularly vicious punishment attacks.
The efforts of the security forces are continuing to yield encouraging results. Since the beginning of the year a total of 140 people have been charged with serious offences, including five with murder and nine with attempted murder. Some 300 weapons, approximately 70,000 rounds of ammunition, and about 4,100 lb of explosives have been recovered in Northern Ireland. I understand that the Garda Siochana has recovered some 200 weapons, almost 139,000 rounds of ammunition, and 600 lb of commercial explosives.

Mr. Molyneaux: Bearing in mind the massive car bomb that was defused at the Strand road Royal Ulster Constabulary station in Londonderry, that one of the vehicles was stolen in Dublin, that another was stolen in Kerry, and that the explosives came from a source in the Irish Republic, what has happened to the promise of close security co-operation, and who is to blame for the breakdown?

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman knows the importance that we attach to improving cross-border security co-operation. The incident that he described precisely underlines why it is so important that we develop and progressively make cross-border security co-operation more effective. The right hon. Gentleman referred to one massive car bomb. There was another bomb, of which the right hon. Member will be aware, in Armagh. It was also defused. There is no doubt that at present we face what I warned the House is a serious threat. The right hon. Gentleman would wish to pay tribute to the vigilance of the security forces that ensured that both bombs were successfully defused.

Rev. William McCrea: Bearing in mind the recent murder of a young UDR member in my constituency and another brutal attack on the RUC in Cookstown the other evening, does the Secretary of State agree that it is essential to have an aggressive security policy to defeat terrorism? Will he tell the House of the new measures that he is considering to bring the terrorist campaign to its conclusion?

Mr. King: Of course I am aware of both incidents. The attack at Cookstown could have been most serious. The hon. Gentleman will know something of the steps that we have recently taken to improve the effectiveness of the security forces. From his knowledge of the subject, the hon. Gentleman will equally well understand why I am not able in the House to go into the full detail of some of the measures that we are taking to seek to ensure the full availability of the resources that we deploy and that they are used as effectively as possible.

Mr. Mallon: The Secretary of State may be aware of speculation that the Royal Irish Rangers may be deployed in the North of Ireland. Does he agree that the deployment of a Northern Irish regiment would add further tensions and friction to an already volatile situation? Will he take

the opportunity to assure the House that Northern Irish regiments will not be deployed in Northern Ireland in the foreseeable future?

Mr. King: Obviously, I am not able to comment. It is a matter for the Ministry of Defence to make any announcements about deployments. The hon. Gentleman will know that, if they were to be deployed, the Royal Irish Rangers would not be the first Northern Irish regiment to be deployed since the start of the troubles. The British Army has a high reputation throughout the Province for the way in which it seeks to discharge its responsibilities, regardless of where its members are recruited. I have no doubt that, were the Royal Irish Rangers to serve in Northern Ireland, they would continue to maintain that high reputation.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the security forces have adequate helicopter coverage? In particular, does he think that the RUC should have a helicopter flight of its own?

Mr. King: As my hon. Friend will know, we have made and are making additional helicopter resources available. I have no proposition before me for the RUC to have a helicopter flight of its own, but the co-operation between the Army, the RAF and the RUC is excellent, and the RUC is extremely grateful for the service that it gets.

Ms. Mowlam: Does the Secretary of State accept that the recent events in Gibraltar have had a negative impact on security in Northern Ireland, and that many of the major issues that are causing public disquiet cannot be answered by an inquest? If so, will he support the call for an inquiry after the inquest?

Mr. King: There would have been a much more disquieting impact on everybody if the terrorist attack in Gibraltar had been successful, because it could have led to the most horrific suffering and tragedy of any terrorist attack in our experience of the IRA campaign. The process that now has to be pursued will lead to an inquest in Gibraltar, and it would help if people would support the due process of that inquiry and not seek to stir up concern in the way that many have sought to do.

United Kingdom-Eire Government Discussions

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subjects were discussed at the last meeting between representatives of Her Majesty's Government and the representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Tom King: I hope to meet Irish Ministers shortly, at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference. The final agenda is not yet fixed, but security co-operation will certainly be one of the subjects and, as announced after the last meeting, the problems of west Belfast and other disadvantaged areas will be discussed together with a number of other matters. The joint statement issued after the last meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference on 4 May sets out the matters discussed. A copy has been placed in the Library.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the previous concern expressed by the Irish Government, and, indeed, by many people in Britain, about the RUC's shoot-to-kill policy in Northern


Ireland, what assessment has been made of the effect upon British-Irish relations of the political orders given to the SAS to extend the shoot-to-kill policy to Gibraltar?

Mr. King: That thoroughly pernicious question that the hon. Gentleman chose to ask starts from a fundamental distortion of the facts. Whatever views and comments may have been expressed about certain aspects of Mr. Stalker's report and inquiry, the hon. Gentleman might do the House the courtesy of recognising that Mr. Stalker made it clear that he was satisfied that there was no shoot-to-kill policy.

Mr. Tim Smith: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with representatives of the Government of the Republic the performance of the respective economies of the two parts of Ireland, and will he draw to their attention the beneficial effects that the Government's economic policies are now having in the Province, in particular the recent fall in unemployment?

Mr. King: It is true that there is a great contrast between the performances of the two economies, and that leads to certain difficulties when we have lower taxation and lower indirect taxes. It raises considerable problems for us in smuggling across the border, which is now becoming substantial and which we are seeking to tackle. I recognise that the successful economic growth in the United Kingdom has been slowly, but now more progressively, reflected in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the welcome fall in unemployment.

Mr. McCusker: Why does the Secretary of State not come to the House following such meetings and make a statement in accordance with the normal conventions of the House following such meetings with a foreign Government? Is is simply because he has nothing of any significance to report, or is it just that he is still contemptuous of the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: The hon Gentleman knows that I have been scrupulous on every occasion when there has been a meeting of the Conference in immediately placing a full report of that in the Library. Moreover, I have extended an invitation to every elected Member in Northern Ireland to meet me before and after the meeting—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would like a personal report from me after the next Conference meeting, I shall be more than happy to provide it.

Mr. Baldry: Is my right hon. Friend able to confirm that the Government's proposals for equality of employment in Northern Ireland are both fair and firm, proceeding by way of a code of practice? Do they not ensure maximum flexibility in creating a climate of co-operation with employers, while at the same time establishing a framework of enforcement by the High Court if need be?

Mr. King: My hon Friend is absolutely right to make those points. It is essential for Northern Ireland that it is seen to he a place where there is fairness and equality of opportunity in employment. I believe that more and more fair-minded people in the Province recognise that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. O'Brien: On the way to the Barbican yesterday, did the Prime Minister observe the new wealth and riches of the City of London? Did she at the same time see the new poverty and homelessness in the same area? For which of those two features does the Prime Minister hold herself responsible?

The Prime Minister: The City of London is earning more than £7 billion in foreign exchange for the whole of Britain. The enormous contribution that it makes to our balance of payments is greater than that of North sea oil at its peak, so it does no one any good to run it down. 'That is part of the process of creating wealth that will enable us to enjoy a higher standard of living. Yes, there is a problem—as the hon. Gentleman is aware—in building extra houses in the south-east, whether in the larger south-east or in filling the areas we have developed. A great deal of that is already happening, especially in the urban development corporations, which is excellent.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend take heart from the very good news from America today that its economy is once more on the move?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course, because the state of the American economy affects the whole world. But, with due respect, the American economy has been growing at a very considerable rate for many years, and America has reduced unemployment because private business has been creating jobs very fast.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday her right hon. and hon. Friends described the decision to allow bids for Rowntree to proceed without impediment as "regional assassination", welcoming the gazumpers, deeply disappointing and "a dangerous signal" to predators? I and my hon. and right hon. Friends agree with them, and 60 of the right hon. Lady's hon. Friends also agree. Why does the Prime Minister not agree with them?

The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made his decision. He explained the full reasons for it. My right hon. and learned Friend announced it in this House. The future of Rowntree is now in the hands of the shareholders. The decision of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was not to intervene, and he made it on the advice of Sir Gordon Borrie of the Office of Fair Trading. That should be absolutely clear.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister realise that with this decision about Rowntree she has given the all-clear to foreign takeover predators in any industry'? Does she not realise that, with this decision, she has put a "For Sale" notice on Britain?

The Prime Minister: No. Each bid is dealt with on competition grounds, and also with a residual public interest. I might point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, according to the latest 1987 figures, the United Kingdom has £94 billion worth of investment in overseas countries, and the world has £55 billion in Britain. The fact is that this country has done extremely well by having an open economy, being able to stand up to competition, and having got rid of exchange controls. That is why we have this standard of living. It is only if a country cannot stand up to competition that it must go back to the closed economy of which the right hon. Gentleman is such an ardent exponent, and which was such a calamity for Britain.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister is talking rubbish. Could she explain to us, as she preaches the virtues of competition, how competition is enhanced by the takeover of one of the major confectionery firms in Europe?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read both the statements of my—[Interruption.] We are dealing with competition against a European background. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to have companies here strong enough to stand up to it. I notice that his home constituency, Islwyn, has an advertisement in the magazine "Airport" which reads:
If your business is expanding"—[Interruption.]—"what does Islwyn mean to you?
The advertisement urges people to come to invest in Islwyn—which is excellent. But not from abroad—that is not what the right hon. Gentleman wants.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the summit between Reagan and Gorbachev in Moscow this weekend, which is taking place only because of the maintenance of sound defence by the West? Does she not agree that it would not be happening if Western Governments had unilaterally thrown away their nuclear weapons, as the leader of the Labour party would have us do?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I believe that the summit is taking place only because of the background of strong and sure defence by this country, as well as by the United States, and because we are able to rely on the whole of NATO and on its nuclear arms, which the Labour party could not do. That party's decision not to decide for some particular time means that it is not behind NATO having nuclear weapons as part of its fundamental nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Faulds: In view of the Prime Minister's nauseating pretence about moral concern at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland—which makes her offence the worse—will she contemplate today what has fired her policies the more during her nine years of power: the careful computation of costs and profits that she learnt at her father's knee, or Christian concern, which she signally failed to learn?

The Prime Minister: As I made perfectly clear in that address—[Interruption.] May I just quote?

None of this … tells us exactly what kind of political and social institutions we should have. On this point, Christians will very often genuinely disagree, though it is a mark of Christian manners that they will do so with courtesy and mutual respect.
That seems to be lacking in the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Couchman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Couchman: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision of the Trades Union Congress yesterday not to sabotage the new employment training scheme, in stark contrast to the advice from some Labour Members? Will she now lead a new initiative between state and industry and commerce to ensure that no one in future is unemployed for lack of a suitable training or retraining opportunity?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we very much welcome the decision of the TUC to support the training programme. I hope that the Labour party will now follow the TUC, as it usually does, and do the same. The programme is meant to provide training for some 600,000 unemployed people and to give them a skill. There are jobs which require skills and which employers cannot fill. It is hoped, therefore, that the programme will be very progressive in reducing unemployment. As my hon. Friend knows, for the younger age group—those between 16 and 18—the youth training scheme guarantees them training very shortly after leaving school for up to two years. Therefore, we are taking great steps to ensure that people who have been unable to get jobs will receive training to help them to do so.

Mr. Darling: Will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that her policy of transferring wealth from poor people to rich people and then urging rich people to give it back to poor people by way of charity is complete nonsense? Will she also reflect on the words of St. Luke, chapter 18, verses 10–14, before she goes to bed tonight?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will realise that wealth must be created before it can be distributed. Under this Government, far more wealth has been created and has been far more widely distributed. Figures published recently show that the poorer parts of the population have had greater increases than the average population.

Mr. Ashby: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ashby: Has my right hon. Friend seen that the figure for the long-term unemployed has dropped by more than 20 per cent.? Is that not good news? Has my right hon. Friend seen that our record for dealing with unemployment is far better than that of Europe, and that it is the best in Europe? Is not the reason for that the fact that companies such as Rolls-Royce, which has just achieved an order in America worth more than £1 billion, are now able to compete free from trade union misrule and in a buoyant economy?

The Prime Minister: The answer to both parts of my hon. Friend's question is yes. The unemployment rate in


the United Kingdom has fallen faster in the past year than in any other major industrialised country. United Kingdom unemployment is now lower than the EC average and the news about long-term unemployment also falling fast in percentage terms and in absolute numbers is very good.
I take this opportunity to congratulate Rolls-Royce on the excellent order it has won. It brings great cheer not only to the work force there, but to those of us on the Conservative Benches. Because it was gained against great competition, it is a great boost for the confidence of Britain that Rolls-Royce once again is at the top.

Mr. Bradley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bradley: Will the Prime Minister explain to my constituents in Withington how her health care policies, presumably based on her interpretation of Christian morality, have led to a financial crisis in the south Manchester health authority? Will she personally intervene to stop further cuts in health care which next month will mean the closure of psychiatric beds at Withington hospital and the appalling closure of wards for the elderly at Burton house, Withington?

The Prime Minister: A few months ago the Labour party was asking for an increase of £2 billion in health care expenditure this year. There has been just about that £2 billion increase in health expenditure, and within that the biggest every pay increases for doctors and nurses, to raise morale. It is now reasonable to expect that that extra money will go into extra patient care and be used fully and properly because, of course, it is taxpayers' money.

Mr. Roger King: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Rover group in my constituency has announced another 1,500 new jobs, that last week Land Rover had its best production figures in over 15 years, and that every week

there are record numbers of job vacancies advertised in the local newspaper? Is that not evidence that in social and economic terms we are creating loads of new jobs through loads of investment, which produces loads of wealth, loads of care and loads of help for our community?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I congratulate my hon. Friend and Rover on being able to take on so many people. That happened because its products are good, because it is able to compete with others and because it is taking the opportunity to thrive under the Government. It is particularly good news that industry is receiving orders for the aeroengines and for cars, because they were areas where we were not excelling before the Government returned to power.

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Michie: I note that the Prime Minister appears to have seen the light and moved to the high moral ground. Is that a temporary aberration while she spends time rewriting the Bible, the Koran and purging the Church freethinkers—[Interruption]

The Prime Minister: I was invited—

Mr. Cryer: Not next year.

The Prime Minister: I was invited, for which I was very grateful, by the Scottish Assembly to give an address. I gave an account of my personal beliefs. The hon. Gentleman may have it if he wishes. The Assembly received it extremely well and I was grateful for that. It issued a statement later saying that the account that appeared in the newspapers yesterday was totally unrepresentative—[Interruption] Perhaps I might just say that an official statement yesterday said:
it is a gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the decision of the General Assembly to represent yesterday's decision as being in any way a snub to the Prime Minister.
The Reverend James Weatherhead, Principal Clerk of the Assembly added, 'I cannot believe that anyone who was present in the General Assembly and faithfully and honourably reported its proceedings could have been so grievously and irresponsibly mistaken.'

Business of the House

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the spring adjournment will be as follows:

TUESDAY 7 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]
WEDNESDAY 8 JUNE—Opposition day (13th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The Failure to refer the Nestle bid for Rowntree to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "The British Aerospace bid for Rover". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion to take note of EC document on spray suppression and sideguards. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 9 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
FRIDAY 10 JUNE—There will be a debate on women's health on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

[Debate on Wednesday 8 June 1988:

Relevant European Community document: 8284/87, Heavier road vehicles: spray suppression and sideguards.

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee: HC 43-v (1987–88) para 14 HC 43-xx (1987–88) para 3.]

Mr. Dobson: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his statement.
First, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the first day of the Criminal Justice Bill when we return will be devoted to a debate on capital punishment? Secondly, when can we expect the long-awaited debate on foreign affairs? Thirdly, will the Government provide an early opportunity for a debate on the White Paper on fair employment in Northern Ireland, which has just been published? Can we expect a statement after the Whitsun recess on the rather remarkable refusal by DHSS Ministers to answer questions on the social fund?
Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the remarkable events today when the police in Downing Street refused to allow some right hon. and hon. Members to accompany their colleagues to present a petition to No. 10 Downing street? Has he yet had an opportunity to make arrrangements for a demonstration of the lighting that may or may not be necessary for the televising of the House?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked me six questions about the business for the first week after the recess. First, he asked me about the Criminal Justice Bill, which is set down for debate on the first day back. The selection of amendments is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. However, if any new clauses relating to capital punishment are selected, it would be my intention that they should be debated first on 7 June.
I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern to have a debate on foreign affairs. He is quite right to press me on this matter. I shall arrange it as soon as possible, but I have no further news.
We have had some exchanges about the fair employment White Paper from Northern Ireland. I cannot offer a debate on this immediately, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend to see whether a debate would be possible.
The Government are well aware of the interest of hon. Members in the operation of the social fund, and because of that are seeking to be helpful, by providing information about individual local offices automatically, on a monthly basis, in the Libraries of both Houses.
The collation of data from 500 offices is a lengthy process, but the information will be made available at the first opportunity. There is of course no question of withholding from the House information which it is reasonably within our power to provide.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about some difficulties in Downing street. I have no information to give him at the moment, but I shall certainly make inquiries into that.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about a lighting demonstration in the House. I am arranging for a letter from the chief political adviser of the BBC to the Clerk of the Select Committee on televising of proceedings of the House to be placed in the Library. The letter gives details of the arrangements that have been made for the BBC and ITN to hold a lighting demonstration in the Chamber at 10.30 am on Tuesday 14 June. All right hon. and hon. Members are invited to attend. Access for visitors to the line of route will therefore be restricted on that day. Details will be given on the All-party Whip this week.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As it is now five months since the Treasury published its paper showing that the average family in Britain has to pay £11 a week extra for food as a direct consequence of the common agricultural policy, could the Leader of the House say exactly when we might discuss this important issue, which affects the living costs of the average family, and also our international competitiveness?

Mr. Wakeham: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, with his customary ingenuity, might manage to get in order a speech on that subject this afternoon.

Mr. James Wallace: When are the two items of business originally set down for this week emanating from the Procedure Committee, concerning short speeches and public petitions, liable to come back for discussion?
With regard to the business that replaced it—the remaining stages of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill—we accept that one reason why the House sat so late yesterday was that the Northern Ireland provisions were added very late. That underlines the unsatisfactory way in which Northern Ireland business is conducted. Has the Leader of the House any proposals to set up a Northern Ireland Committee under Standing Order No. 99, as pressed upon him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)?

Mr. Wakeham: I regret that the business originally set down was not proceeded with as I had intended, and I shall arrange for it to be set down again as soon as possible. I agree with the hon. Gentleman this far, that there is quite a lot of disquiet about the way in which Northern Ireland business is dealt with in the House. I recognise that hon. Members would like much of it dealt with otherwise, but I have no proposals to make in that connection.
The lateness of the hour to which the House sat last night was due much more to the antics of certain Left-wing Labour Members of Parliament, who sought to prolong the debate to an unreasonable hour and who must be a greater embarrassment—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have an end to this pointing.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: As we approach this pagan and profane holiday and parliamentary recess, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the early-day motion entitled "Public Holidays", standing in my name and that of some of my hon. Friends?
[This this House, while desiring that public holidays should be reasonably spread through the year, considers that they should enable the people to commemorate traditional religious and national occasions; feels shame that the forthcoming Spring Bank Holiday should have been fixed not on, but close to, Whit Monday, long kept, in like manner to Easter Monday, to mark the joy of a great Christian festival; deplores the policy of successive governments in this matter which has advanced the secularisation of a country where a Christian church is by law established and where, according to surveys of public opinion, the vast majority of Her Majesty's subjects acknowledge themselves to be in some measure Christian; further regrets the confusion caused to the public about the Christian calendar; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to invite the co-operation of Her Majesty's Opposition and others in revising the list of public holidays in the United Kingdom.]
Will my right hon. Friend enable the House to give some consideration to this matter? Is it not a scandal that we should hold in contempt the Christian festival of Pentecost?

Mr. Wakeham: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend, but I am not sure that, because he and I might agree on this matter, it would necessarily be thought for the general convenience of the House. I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says, and if there were an opportunity for a debate, I would obviously welcome it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House reflect upon what he has just said about last night's events and take into account the fact that the Government introduced a Bill that was attacked furiously by many of his own hon. Friends; that it had added to it a Northern Ireland dimension halfway through, which prevented some Northern Ireland Members from taking part in the proceedings before the guillotine; that as a result every minority party in the House took part, as is their right, in a campaign to obstruct the Government at all times; and that during the course of that it was decided by Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about business the week after next, not this week.

Mr. Skinner: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the House took the opportunity to refer to last night's proceedings, and I think that it is in order for somebody to answer that. Will the right hon. Gentleman, during the course of the full business of the week after next, retract those statements, bearing in mind that it is the job of every Opposition Member to harry and obstruct this Government, especially when the Government introduce a measure that changes out of all recognition during the

course of its passage through the House, and taking into account the fact that Standing Order 39 should not have been invoked with those Members present?

Mr. Wakeham: The question of invoking Standing Order 39 is a question for the Chair, not for me. The hon. Gentleman's view of the conduct of an Opposition is very interesting. In his view, its role should be to obstruct the business to which members of his own Front Bench give a welcome and which is to be passed into law. Not only that, but his own Front Bench spokesmen complain about the lack of progress on the Bill. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is much more of an embarrassment to his right hon. and hon. Friends that he is to me.

Sir Anthony Grant: When will there be an opportunity to debate the length of speeches, a debate that disappeared as a result of the change of business? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that this is of extreme importance and relevance to the televising of Parliament?

Mr. Wakeham: I absolutely recognise the importance of that subject, and the connotation that my hon. Friend puts on it. As I have said, it is one of the casualties of this week, but I hope to reinstate it as soon as possible.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Leader of the House make time available in the near future for a debate on the guidelines and criteria used by the Home Secretary to determine the allocation of police officers to the various police constabularies? Is he aware that, of the 450 officers available to be allocated this year, not one was allocated to Leicester constabulary, and that, despite the excellent work of the chief constable, assisted by the constabulary, they have not been assisted by the Government with extra resources? Bearing in mind the fact that there is one crime every 10 minutes in Leicestershire, when can we have a debate on this important matter?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree that it is an important matter and I would welcome the opportunity to have a debate on it, but I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate in the near future. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the club below the Gangway will listen. We are dealing with business for the week after next.

Mr. Michael Latham: Following the question by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), will my right hon. Friend please think about this again? Is he aware that we need an early debate on those criteria for the decision of the Home Secretary, because it is absolutely ludicrous that. Leicestershire has been given no more police, and that Leicestershire Members will be pursuing the Home Secretary very persistently in Question Time until that decision is changed?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the force of what my hon. Friend says; I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on why Mr. Giles Hopkinson, a senior Department of the Environment official, wrote a letter to the Private Secretary to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment saying that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Prime Minister wanted Richmond


yard to be valued by a private-sector valuer? It is clear that they were involved. May we have a statement on the nature of that involvement?

Mr. Wakeham: No, I do not think that a statement is required. I have looked at the written answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle). I accept that there may have been a misunderstanding, but I do not believe that my hon. Friend sought to mislead the House. To avoid any continuing misunderstanding, my hon. Friend will write to the hon. Member for Warrington, North today to set out the position and put a copy of the letter in the Library.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have an early statement on the unprecedented position in my constituency at Hanway road, which is in a council estate? Royal mail deliveries have been suspended for the second time in three months because of attacks by dogs on postmen, which Ealing council has not brought under control. As pensioners, some of whom are very elderly, are having to walk two or three miles to collect their post, will the House consider the matter with a view to getting action taken to restore the post?

Mr. Wakeham: Last week, my hon. Friend raised the question of flooding in his constituency. Ealing council is empowered to assist with the incidents of that kind. I believe that the incident that he has raised, which must be very distressing, is a matter for the council rather than for me. I shall do anything that I can to assist my hon. Friend.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Leader of the House may be aware that the consultative period for the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive proposals for nuclear dumping expires next Wednesday. Would it not be appropriate to have an early debate in Government time so that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies—Scotland is emerging as the key target area for Nirex and nuclear dumping—can record the strength of public opposition in Scotland to the proposals and warn the Government that, if they proceed with nuclear dumping in Scotland, they will be reduced from the third to the fourth party in Scotland?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in his place yesterday when this matter was raised. I told the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) that I did not think it appropriate to have a debate at the present time, but that it was right and proper for any hon. Member to put his views and those of his constituents to Nirex. I believe that that is the way forward; the time for a debate is later.

Mr. James Kilfedder: In a country that prides itself on being a parliamentary democracy, is it not a disgrace that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland still slides out of his responsibility to tell right hon. and hon. Members what he is saying and doing in their names at the Anglo-Eire conference? Is it not time he was brought to account and a debate arranged to discuss the matter?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present in the House earlier—I think he was—when my right hon. Friend was answering questions.

I thought that he gave a very good account of himself, and the invitation that he gave the hon. Gentleman is one that he should take up.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House recognise that, over the past year, there has been a growing interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland among hon. Members? Northern Ireland Members having a private tête-à -tête with the Secretary of State would not give the exposure that is needed. I am aware of the understanding and knowledge of the Leader of the House. Will he say whether there will be a legislative programme in the weeks after the recess affecting Northern Ireland? Last night's protests were made primarily by Ulster Unionists who could not take part in earlier debates and had only one alternative to show their opposition—to divide the House.

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot anticipate any debate that we may have in the weeks after the recess, but I have taken note of the hon. Gentleman's comments in the wider context. I recognise that the interest in Northern Ireland affairs is greater than that of just the Official Unionist party and the other parties that directly represent Northern Ireland. I still believe that my right hon. Friend's offer to have talks is a valuable part of the process which many hon. Members seek to take up in dealing with the matters of concern to them. I see no reason why Northern Ireland Members should not participate.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: In view of the concern and considerable number of questions about European competition policy and the large number of policy aspects that are affected in the run-up to the single European market, will my right hon. Friend consider making time available for a wide debate on the implications of 1992?

Mr. Wakeham: There is a lot of pressure on time at the moment, but I agree with my hon. Friend—completion of a single European market by 1992 will have an enormous effect on all British business. It is an opportunity and a challenge. We have no plans at present for a debate specifically on this matter, but all the individual measures in the single market programme are considered by the Scrutiny Committee and can be debated when that Committee makes its recommendations. With a little ingenuity by hon. Members, today's debate offers another opportunity.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we have a debate on the disgraceful and shocking refusal of the Home Secretary to comply with the request of the chief constable of Leicester for more police, especially in view of the letter I have received from Chief Superintendent Adams who describes this decision as "creating extreme concern" among senior police officers and as showing that the Home Secretary has ignored the efforts of the police to contain the ever-increasing tide of crime, hooliganism, violence and vandalism? Surely the Home Secretary should, at the very least, make a statement about why crime in some parts of Leicestershire has doubled since the Conservative party came to power, while the police force is to be kept exactly the same?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot for one moment accept the criticisms of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that are implied in the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. I recognise the anxiety of the hon. and learned Gentleman


and his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). As I said, I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Max Madden: Why do DHSS Ministers refuse to answer parliamentary questions on the operation of the social fund while, at Northern Ireland questions today, a Northern Ireland Minister could give the information that DHSS Ministers refuse to give to Members from other parts of the United Kingdom? Will the Leader of the House understand that it is wholly unacceptable for the DHSS to refuse to answer parliamentary questions on the social fund and to dump enormous amounts of information in the Library during the recess, clearly to suppress and conceal that information from the public, the media and Members of Parliament? Will the right hon. Gentleman press the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement when we return after the recess, making it clear that he has changed his policy and intends to answer parliamentary questions on the operation of the social fund?

Mr. Wakeham: It seems a strange way of withholding information from Members of Parliament to put it in the Library. I cannot add anything to what I said to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). There is no question of withholding information from the House that it is reasonably within our power to provide.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the official Opposition felt so strongly about the alleged deficiencies to which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred last night in the debate on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill that hardly any of them bothered to turn up, and those who did bother to do so did not stay throughout the night, that there was no official representative on the Opposition Front Bench throughout the night and that all the running was made—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing the week after next's business, not last night's.

Mr. Lawrence: It follows from that question that, if there had been any members of the public in the Gallery, they would have been appalled at—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Yes, but there are other opportunities to discuss what went on last night. We are dealing now with the business for the week after next.

Mr. Lawrence: If we had an early debate on the absurd procedure that we have accepted for ourselves in this matter, it would do a great deal to improve the standing of the House in the country.

Mr. Wakeham: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. and learned Friend, but I would certainly not promise him a further debate on that subject in the near future, although I think that it would have been better if Opposition Members had known what they were voting about.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House take time to have a word with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and ask him to make an early statement about the operation of development and investment grants, particularly in the north-west—especially those emanating from the Manchester office? A company in my

constituency which had struggled for survival was awarded a loan of £600,000, but has still not received it a year later. Such incidents lead to the failure of companies rather than their development and improvement. That is a matter of considerable concern not only in my constituency but in many others.

Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman has any particular difficulties, no doubt he will take them up direct with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. If I can assist in the matter I shall do so, but I cannot promise an early debate.

Mr. John Stokes: In view of the plan announced yesterday by the Law Commission to allow much easier divorce, may I ask for an early debate on this most important subject, as increasing divorce threatens the social fabric of the nation?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of my hon. Friend's remarks, but a pause for reflection on receiving the report would probably be in the best interests of us all.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Leader of the House reflected on the issues involving propriety at the heart of Government, encapsulated in early-day motion No. 1142?
[That this House notes that the Guardian of Friday 20th May carried an article entitled 'Thatcher's boy in a cleft stick', which stated that according to Foreign Office sources 'Mr. Charles Powell wants Washington or Paris nothing less, but he's not going to get either of them', and that Mr. Powell had been offered and turned down the pose of Ambassador in Stockholm, and that the article added 'Powell has another string to his bow: he knows where the bodies are buried in the Westland Affair. He escaped appearing before a Select Committee, but not their sharpest criticism for his orchestrating role in the leaking of a letter from the then Solicitor General, which ultimately resulted in the then Secretary of State for Defence's resignation'; expresses its concern that knowledge of wrong-doing by the Prime Minister is alleged to put Mr. Powell in a position to obtain an Embassy more senior than his status warrants; asserts that this is not in keeping with the high moral ground claimed by the Prime Minister; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to make a statement.]
Could he pass comment on the press statement—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are dealing with the business for when we come back after the recess.

Mr. Dalyell: Will he make a statement—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order for the Government to comment on press statements today. Will the hon. Gentleman please ask about the business for the week after next?

Mr. Dalyell: Will the tight hon. Gentleman make a statement the week after next on the press assertion that the Prime Minister's private secretary is holding out for an embassy in Washington or Paris, has turned down Stockholm—[Interruption.] Yes, exactly. It is rather well known. There is an assertion and an issue—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his question to the business for the week after next; otherwise we shall take time from the subsequent debate


and prevent those who legitimately wish to take part from doing so, and would the hon. Gentleman refrain from engaging in repartee with the club below the Gangway.

Mr. Dalyell: It is also asserted that an additional string to his bow is that he knows
where the bodies are buried
in the Westland affair. As the Lord President of the Council also knows a great deal about the matter, he knows the exact importance of what I am saying. This matter cannot go without a reply when we come back.

Mr. Wakeham: I should have thought that by now the hon. Gentleman would have realised that he ought not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers—even The Guardian. I am afraid that his own lively imagination together with the speculation and gossip that some newspapers contain make for a very unreliable recipe. Facts may make for a more boring diet, but it is one that I recommend to the hon. Gentleman nevertheless.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I accept the great pressures placed upon my right hon. Friend, but does he accept in considering the business for the week after next that if Government—I do not mean this Government alone—did not introduce ill-considered legislation such as the Bill before the House last night, the House could find time to debate very important issues affecting people throughout the country? Not least, we could debate matters related to pre-1973 war widows, the unemployment and loss of exports that could well result if the furniture fire safety regulations are implemented without amendment, and many other issues. Will he not seriously consider the real issues that affect this nation, rather than the ill-considered legislation introduced by the Government when over-reacting to situations that develop in this country?

Mr. Wakeham: When my hon. Friend started his question, I thought that I would agree with him in wanting less legislation. I assure him that, as a business manager, I try to keep the amount of legislation to the minimum. However, towards the end of his question, I thought that he was encouraging me to find more legislation.
With regard to the business which was dispatched yesterday, the Bill before the House received an unopposed Second Reading and the bulk of the amendments were the result of listening to representations of hon. Members on all sides of the House in an attempt to meet their wishes. I believe that my hon. Friend would be the first to complain if the Government did not listen to the views of Back Benchers.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Leader of the House explain why the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment took 19 days to answer my question? Will he also say why, if he received several drafts, he did not use them? Was it because they did not fit his preconceived views? Was that why he decided on an evasion of the facts? Will the Leader of the House reconsider the position and ask his hon. Friend to do the honourable thing and make a statement to the House?

Mr. Wakeham: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, who is reasonably fair in these matters, that my hon. Friend has written a letter to him explaining what he

thinks is the basis of the misunderstanding. The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to receive that letter; then, if he wishes to comment on it, we shall look at the best way to proceed.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Leader of the House aware that a recent Channel 4 poll of young people showed that 80 per cent. were in favour of the return of the death penalty? Does that not reveal that the vast majority of people in this country want the return of the death penalty? Will he confirm that on Tuesday week there will be a well structured debate in prime time that will run for a lengthy period?

Mr. Wakeham: The statistics and the arguments on the question of capital punishment have been well rehearsed in the many debates that we have had in the House. No doubt they will be well rehearsed again should we have a debate on Tuesday 7 June. As I said to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the question of the selection of amendments is for you, Mr. Speaker, and not for me. However, if any new clauses relating to capital punishment are selected, it would be my intention that they should be debated first on 7 June.

Mr. David Alton: Given the reply that the Leader of the House has just given about the importance of a free vote on capital punishment, does he not also agree that the other great issue of consicence—the life-and-death issue of the 1960s—concerning abortion should be similarly voted upon? Will he say whether he would be in favour of such an amendment being selected and the House being given the chance to vote on it?

Mr. Wakeham: The selection of amendments is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and not for me. It would be improper for me to comment on the selection of any amendments. It is a hypothetical question. I know how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels, but I cannot add anything to what I have already said.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Returning to the earlier question about the lighting demonstration for the possible future televising of the House and further debate on that issue, does my right hon. Friend accept that it might be a good idea to invite organisations other than the BBC and ITV to give demonstrations? Worthy though those organisations are, there may be expertise elsewhere which could be used to good effect.

Mr. Wakeham: Whom the Select Committee decides to invite to give evidence is a matter for it. It has been asked to prepare a report to the House and that is what it is doing. It seemed to the Select Committee that, as it was going to invite the BBC and the ITN to give a lighting demonstration, it would be helpful to the House that as many hon. Members as possible could see that demonstration. That is how it has been arranged. If the Committee decides to ask other organisations to give a demonstration—I am not saying that it will—we shall have to look at what arrangements can be made.

Mr. David Winnick: Reverting to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), does the Leader of the House agree that it is unacceptable that Members of Parliament, carrying out their duties, should not be able to go into Downing street, except six at a time? Who gave those instructions to the police? The Leader of the House accepts


that he has responsibility for all Members of the House, so will he recognise that, if we are carrying out our duties and wish to present letters or petitions to No. 10, there should be no restrictions whatsoever? Will he make a statement as early as possible after our return from the recess informing us that those restrictions will no longer be in place?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot possibly give an undertaking of that sort. I said to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that I would look into the matter, but I was not aware of the details. Since then, I have been answering questions from other hon. Members and have had no chance to acquaint myself with the position. I shall do so when I leave the Chamber.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer that he gave on having an early debate on the Nirex report on nuclear dumping prepared by the Scottish National party? It is essential that we have an early debate to expose the lies which have been put out about, for example, the dumping of nuclear waste in my constituency at Schehallion. Anyone reading about nuclear dumping will know that most of the suitable areas are in constituencies held by Scottish nationalists.

Mr. Wakeham: I know that my hon. Friend will recognise that I have some experience of these matters. I understand the passions and the fears—often misguided—that they arouse. Of course, I shall be happy for there to be a debate on the subject, but I do not believe that this is the right time.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Is the Leader of the House aware that early-day motion 463, expressing concern about the Government's policy in relation to Kampuchea, has now attracted the signatures of about 200 hon. Members from all parties?
[That this House calls on the Government to review urgently its policy towards Kampuchea; congratulates OXFAM fir its continued aid to that country; notes that Kampuchea is the only Third World country which has no United Nations development programme; believes that the country's diplomatic isolation due to the impasse at the United Nations concerning representation of Kampuchea must be ended; urges the Government to re-convene the 1954 Geneva Conference on Indo-China, which was co-chaired by the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, and actively to promote a negotiated settlement which would isolate Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge; and stresses that as a matter of the greatest urgency Her Majesty's Government should provide reconstruction and development aid to Kampuchea forthwith.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members are especially concerned that the Government support the genocidal regime of Pol Pot? Should we not have an opportunity to debate this matter?

Mr. Wakeham: I have told the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that I am hoping to arrange a general debate on foreign affairs. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman's contribution would be in order on that occasion.
On the question of the early-day motion, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State explained in answer to questions on 23 November, it is our long-held wish to see the withdrawal of Vietnamese forces and the freedom for the Kampuchean people to determine their own future.

Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. Friend consider in the forthcoming business of the House the way in which the rule of the House, colloquially known as the mayor of Sligo rule, prevents hon. Members from questioning Ministers on the number of representations that they have received from hon. Members on a particular subject? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that this rule is the very antithesis of open government? Should it not be referred to the Procedure Committee? Is it not time that we pensioned off the mayor of Sligo and his wretched little rule? Is it not typical of the hypocrisy that sometimes occurs in the House that we continually hear calls for the repeal of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, but we are not prepared to put our own house in order?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend, but I thank him for giving me notice of his question. I did not know about the mayor of Sligo rule until he told me about it. My hon. Friend will be aware that the rule of order to which he refers dates back to 1896, when the Speaker ruled that questions referring to communications between an individual Member and a Minister should not be allowed on the Notice Paper. My hon. Friend's question is therefore a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and not for me.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement when the House returns on the extraordinary evidence given by Mr. Peter Levene to the Select Committee on Defence that Ferranti and British Aerospace refused to provide information about the prices of spare parts to the Ministry of Defence'? In a business that is worth over £2 billion of taxpayers' money, should we not bring pressure to bear on those two companies? As British Aerospace seems to get such and excellent deal out of the Government, could we not ask the right hon. Member of Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to use his pressure on British Aerospace to stop that company ripping off the taxpayer? Could we not ask Tory MEP Basil de Ferranti to do the same for Ferranti, or is ripping off the taxpayer part of the enterprise culture?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman, who is a stickler for constitutional propriety in this House when it suits him, would be better advised not to make such remarks but to behave in the proper fashion. The Select Committee on Defence is taking evidence and will no doubt issue a report. When that report is received, the Government will no doubt respond to it, and that is the time to consider a debate. One-sided, biased and unsubstantiated remarks of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has made are not helpful for the good conduct of public affairs.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: In view of the forthcoming celebration of the tercentenary of the Bill of Rights and the glorious revolution, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the composition of the other place and the voting rights of hereditary peers?

Mr. Wakeham: I was hoping to celebrate that by getting through the Government's business in good time, in good order and with the business unamended as far as possible. Fascinating though the subject is to many of us, this is not the right time for such a discussion.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Will the Leader of the House stop misrepresenting what happened last night? May I assure him, without fear of contradiction,


that the House was kept here until 5.30 am at the insistence of the Ulster Unionists, who were using the only device available to them—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that we must deal with the business for next week.

Mr. McCusker: My point is linked to that.
—to protest at the means by which the Government apply legislation to Northern Ireland. Is the Leader of the House aware that Ulster Unionists have been informed only today that once again another important piece of legislation, the Criminal Justice Bill, will have sections that apply to Northern Ireland added on Report? Is that an adequate way of dealing with what has perhaps now become just an adjunct or attachment to the rest of the United Kingdom? Is it not time that Northern Ireland was governed like the rest of the country?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not want to go over yesterday's debates or to comment on debates to come, because that is not strictly relevant to my function here. Hon. Members of all parties should look at the substance of the issues before us rather than seeking to carp at every point at which they feel disgruntled when they are not taking the opportunities that are already available to them to consult and discuss with the Government.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) a few moments ago and, by way of a change, direct his attention again to the Criminal Justice Bill? My right hon. Friend has clearly stated that if you, Mr. Speaker, see fit to select an amendment on capital punishment, there is a particular day on which it is to be debated, which seems a fair indication that we are expecting just that. Can my right hon. Friend give any similar assurance either as to the day on which it is to be debated or whether he is hopeful about its selection in respect of the amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that has been tabled by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine)?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything to what I have said, except that my statement about the hypothetical situation with regard to new clauses on capital punishment, should you select them, Mr. Speaker, repeats the undertaking that I gave many months ago.

Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House consider, after the recess, the possibility of presenting to the House proposals for child care reform? I should like to draw his attention to the fact that my early-day motion No. 792 has been signed by over 300 hon. Members of all parties.
[That this House deplores the increasing frequency of grandparents being deprived the right of access to, care, fostering or adoption of their grandchildren; notes with alarm the attitude of some social services employees; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to introduce early legislation to give legal rights to grandparents providing immediate right of access before children are taken into care and the right to be present or legally represented at any official hearing or inquiry regarding future access to, care, fostering and adoption of their grandchild or grandchildren.]
There is a demand for grandparents to have access to their grandchildren and a need for grandparents to have the right to be represented at court proceedings. As the White Paper was published in 1987, is it not time that the Government started to put their own house in order and tried to reform the law relating to child care?

Mr. Wakeham: I know the hon. Gentleman's long and deep concern about many of those issues. I also know that he intends to raise the matter in the House tomorrow when a Minister will reply to him. That is the best way to proceed from here.

Mr. Alan Meale: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Department of Energy has recently issued to limited sources a consultative document on coal-mining subsidence damage compensation? Is he also aware that district councils throughout Nottinghamshire and south Yorkshire have already undertaken a large-scale survey at huge cost, but that date for the final receipt of evidence for the consultative paper is as early as 29 July? Will the right hon. Gentleman use the usual channels to ensure the extension of that consultative period so that all the evidence can rightly be given to the Department of Energy for full consideration during that consultative period?

Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman is correct that a great deal of work has already been done which would form the basis of the evidence, there does not appear to me to be a problem with the end date. However, I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy because it is obviously right that my consultation process should receive all the advice that anybody can give.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Leader of the House aware that many people in London are facing increasing misery living in bed-and-breakfast hotels; or are sleeping on the streets of London because of the homelessness crisis or facing ever-increasing rents in both the council and private sector; that in the Health Service in London, many hospitals are under threat because of hospital closure programmes due to Health Service amalgamations; that traffic and transport chaos is rife throughout the capital and that there are many growing social problems, partly as a result of the abolition of the Greater London council, but also because of the general underfunding of all aspects of London's social infrastructure? Will the Leader of the House repeat his earlier assurance that there will be an early, full and urgent debate on the plight of London and Londoners, and on the need for central Government funding to be restored to the level of 1979, before this Government took office?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I will defend to the end his right to say it. I wish that he would he a bit more balanced in his approach and talk about some of the extravagent Left-wing councils, and the council houses that are left untenanted when there are people who want to move into them. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I am looking for time for a debate on London, and I am still looking for time. I repeat today the assurances that I have given him that I will do my best to find time for a debate.

Mr. Harry Cohen: May I press the Leader of the House further on that? Will he ensure that there is an early debate in Government time about the problems of


London, because, as unemployment has increased by 150 per cent. in the capital since 1979, with poor housing, above-average health cuts, low incomes and low benefits, but high costs to many individuals, many Londoners feel that they have been hammered by the Government and that they are living in unrecognised poverty? May we have an early debate on London?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not want to be seen to be discriminating between the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), so I hope that he will take my previous answer as adequate for him as well.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Jim Marshall, at long last.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I repeat the request by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for an early debate on the police, and specifically, on the Leicestershire constabulary? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows this, but great steps have been made in increasing the number of civilians in the police force in Leicestershire and in putting more police on the beat there. But still more policemen and women are required to combat rising crime in Leicester.
In view of this background, it is incomprehensible to all hon. Members representing Leicestershire, irrespective of their political parties, that the chief constable's reasonable request for a small increase in establishment should have been refused. In the light of that, will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision not to arrange an early debate?

Mr. Wakeham: I have already told hon. Members that I shall refer the matter to the Home Secretary, and that is what I shall do. I cannot add any more. I hope that the fact that the hon. Gentleman was rather late in the batting order today does not mean the the Leicester Mercury will leave him out of the report.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Has the Leader of the House taken note of early-day motion 1163, which concerns the arrest and detention without trial of the general secretary of the Trade Union Federation of the West bank, Mr. Shaeer Saed?
[That this House condemns the arrest and detention without trial of Shaeer Saed, the General Secretary of the Trade Union Federation of the West Bank; believes that this is a further example of the Israeli Government's obstruction of the democratic organisation of Palestinian people within the Occupied Territories; notes that he has met senior representatives of both parties in the House; fears that his arrest may be intended to obstruct contacts between Palestinians and parliamentary representatives of other countries; and calls on the Government to protest, in the strongest terms, to the Israeli Government.]
Will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House as soon as possible about this regrettable situation? We are particularly concerned because Mr. Saed showed a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House around Palestine, and his arrest may be related in some way to his having shown democratically elected Members of Parliaments of other countries around.

Mr. Wakham: The Government deplore the Israeli practice of holding Palestinians in detention without trial. We have asked the Israelis for details of Mr. Saed's case.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Anthony Banks.

Mr. Tony Banks: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am deeply grateful for having been able to catch your eye on this occasion.
May we have an early debate on the outbreak of legionnaire's disease at Broadcasting house in London? The Leader of the House may be aware that I have been asking his right hon. and hon. Friends in the DHSS for a public inquiry, but it has been refused so far. It is clear that the BBC has not fully made available all the facts surrounding the outbreak of the disease, and by delaying giving the information to Londoners it has undoubtedly exposed many hundreds of thousands of them to the disease. In order to restore some confidence in London, may we have an early debate on this issue?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise an early debate, but I recognise that the hon. Gentleman raises a point of concern. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend and see whether any statement should be made.

Mr. David Winnick: May I seek your advice, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order? You will have heard the exchanges earlier, and the Leader of the House may well report back to us that the problem that we complained about will continue. Can you help in any way? It is understandable that from time to time we should go to 10 Downing street in the course of our parliamentary duties, but I see no reason why scenes such as this morning's should be repeated—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I can help the hon. Gentleman. I am not responsible for what goes on outside the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. I called the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) last because I thought he might ask this question. It is a matter for the Leader of the House, who is looking into it, and not for me.

Mr. Winnick: Could you use your influence in any way, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I use my influence in all kinds of ways, but not on the ballot for notices of motion—the business to which we must now move on.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you for a general response about a general issue of privilege? May I have an assurance that when you decide on these matters you always call for all the necessary documents to enable you to make a reasonable judgment about them?

Mr. Speaker: I can assure the hon. Member that if any hon. Member raises a matter of privilege with me I go into it in the greatest detail and with the most careful consideration. The hon. Gentleman may have that absolute assurance.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION FOR 13 JUNE

The following Members were successful in the Ballot:
Mr. Alan Meale
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens
Sir Peter Hordern

St. Christopher and Nevis (Gift)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That Sir William Clark and Mr. Bernie Grant have leave of absence to present on behalf of this House a gift of a Speaker's Chair and Desk to the National Assembly of St. Christopher and Nevis.
The House will recall that on 18 January it approved the presentation of a Speaker's Chair and Desk to the National Assembly of St. Christopher and Nevis. The gift was exhibited in the Upper Waiting Hall in the week beginning 7 March. The purpose of this motion, which is moved in accordance with the normal precedents on occasions of this sort, gives leave of absence to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) and the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) to present the gift formally on the House's behalf. They will be accompanied by Mr. Charles Winnifrith, clerk of Select Committees.

Question put and agreed to.

European Community

Mr. Speaker: I have to announce to the House that I have not selected the amendment on the Order Paper, but these matters may be canvassed in the debate.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on developments in the European Community, July-December 1987 (Cm. 336).
These debates are an important part of the role of the House in monitoring developments within the Community. The fact that they are seldom well attended is, in part, a reflection of the extent to which our membership of the Community is now taken for granted. But it is also a reflection of the pattern of debate in the past.
The White Paper that we are debating covers the period up to the European Council in Copenhagen last year. It describes the aims of the United Kingdom in the negotiations, which were still under way at the end of 1987. Our continuous central aim has been the lasting reform of the common agricultural policy. In the words of the White Paper our prime requirement was
to achieve effective and proper control of agricultural spending, the key to which was a strict framework of budget discipline for all Community expenditure backed by mechanisms called 'stabilisers' to control the cost to the Community of support for each agricultural commodity".
That is now being achieved.
The CAP has often been debated in the House. In the proposals on the future financing of the Community brought forward by the Commission at the beginning of 1987, reform of the CAP played a central role. The Commission recognised the case that we had made for strict budget discipline to control agricultural expenditure and for a firmer link between that budget discipline and the individual regulations controlling agricultural expenditure.
In the summer of last year, the Commission put forward proposals for agricultural stabilisers—that is, binding limits on the support mechanisms for individual agricultural commodities, firmly linked to an overall guideline for agricultural expenditure. It was the achievement of those stabilisers and that linkage at Brussels earlier this year which marked the successful culmination of our efforts.
As a result of this agreement, we now have a legally binding ceiling on agricultural expenditure which will reduce its real growth from 10 per cent. a year over the past three years to less than 2 per cent. by 1990.
We have a crucial agreement under which, if a threshold of production is passed, guaranteed price cuts will be triggered. For cereals, they will amount to over 12 per cent. over four years on a cumulative basis, and around 8 per cent. a year for the next three years for oilseeds.
The combined effect of those changes means that, if production continues to rise, there will be double digit price cuts in the arable sector over the next three years. The cereals package alone will save £120 million this year, and up to £900 million in 1991. The savings on the costs of the oilseeds regime will save up to £400 million in 1990.
The House will agree that they are significant changes—large in themselves, and enormous in the psychological and political change that they represent within the


Community. The time for vigilance on CAP spending will never by over, but the era of open-ended support has been brought to an end.
It is on the basis of such policies that, last week, one newspaper was able to carry the headline "Butter mountain melts". The surplus of unsold butter, since the start of milk quotas 18 months ago, has been cut from 1·5 millon tonnes to half a million tonnes. That is still too much. It gives the lie, however, to those who claim that the butter mountain could only go one way—that is, upwards.
In addition, we have tightened up the control of agricultural expenditure in other ways. Before the Brussels agreement, agricultural expenditure was at the mercy of changes in the dollar-ecu exchange rate. If the ecu costs of agricultural expenditure went up, it was automatically reflected in the budget. If they went down the saving was not reflected in the budget. Now savings will feed through into the budget, and extra costs will be incurred only above a threshold and up to a fixed limit.
We have also secured other significant reforms in the management of the Community's budget and in the overall control of expenditure. In particular, hon. Members are rightly anxious that control of agricultural spending should not allow uncontrolled growth of non-agricultural spending. They will welcome the specific decision of the Brussels European Council in February to reaffirm the treaty provisions governing the control of non-obligatory spending for those programmes that are not clearly agreed priorities.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree that it is difficult to assess whether British farmers have the same opportunity as their European counterparts to compete on equal terms. Will she urge her Government to hold an inquiry to determine whether British farmers are competing on equal terms with their European counterparts? It would restore confidence, which is at its lowest ebb since the war ended.

Mrs. Chalker: I understand what the hon. Gentleman said. In a recent debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sought to outline his views on that subject. I shall look again at what is available and come back to the hon. Gentleman.
The European Council also agreed to have, within the overall own resources decision annual sub-ceilings on Community revenue, to ensure that overall budget discipline is secured. In all of this the United Kingdom has preserved the benefits of the Fontainebleau abatement mechanism. There were some who said that we should sacrifice some of the abatement to secure agricultural reform. We believed that we could have both, and I am glad to say that the Government were proved right.
The abatement is not a favour to the United Kingdom which we should bargain away in negotiations. The abatement was the recognition by the Community that the United Kingdom was paying more than its fair share to the Community budget. Our argument has always been that we are willing to pay our share of the cost of Community policies, but it has to be a fair share. We shall ensure that it continues to be a fair share.

Mr. George Robertson: I do not wish to raise the excitement level of the debate too quickly, but will the right hon. Lady tell the House who suggested that we

should give up some of our abatement to deal with the agricultural crisis? I have no recollection of anybody saying that.

Mrs. Chalker: I shall check on the matter. At this moment, I cannot recall the person who said it, but I have heard it said during our many years of debating these subjects. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to advise him later.

Sir Anthony Meyer: If it is of any help to my right hon. Friend, I was the person who said it, and I have said it on repeated occasions. We are frustrating our long-term objectives by concentrating too much on our short-term objectives.

Mrs. Chalker: On a moment's further reflection and with some help from my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will find that, on one occasion, the European Affairs Committee of the House of Lords referred to both matters being possible. However, we did not agree, and the outcome of the long negotiations has proved the Government to be absolutely right.
In 1984, the Leader of the Opposition told the press:
The Prime Minister had better enjoy the sunshine at Fontainebleau because I do not think she is going to enjoy a hell of a lot else. She is not coming away with £475 million".
The right hon. Gentleman was right—in a way. We have come away not with £475 million, but with £3,000 million. That is a much more satisfactory solution for this country.
We were confident that, once the case for the abatement had been accepted, it would become enshrined in the policies of the Community. That confidence has been borne out by events.
The key question for the next few years is what sort of Community we create and how we maximise our benefits from it. The Opposition are still coy about giving us their vision of the Community. I understand that. I sympathise with the problem that they face. When Opposition Members were advocating withdrawal from the Community, the British people said no. Now that the Labour leadership is in favour of the Community, the bulk of the Labour party may say no. One of these days, the Labour party may manage to synchronise its policies with the wishes of the British people, but it has not happened yet, and I suspect that it will not happen for a long time.
The Opposition have chosen a somewhat unlikely champion of their new policy that we now hear about. Faced with the impossibility of having a coherent policy here at Westminster, they have left it all to Labour MEPs at the European Parliament. They have just published a new Labour vision for Europe. It is based on the old ideas of the corporate state that have been comprehensively rejected, not just in this country, but in all other member states of the Community. The Labour party's view of Europe is of a Europe firmly governed from the centre. It is a Europe of directive, regulation and bureaucracy, workers' co-operatives and social engineering. It is as though the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) were to be made President of the Commission.

Mr. George Foulkes: That is a good idea.

Mrs. Chalker: We can see where the hon. Gentleman's instincts lie. It is an interesting revelation. The Labour party's conception of the Community—be it in Strasbourg or in the House—is wrong.
The Government favour common action in the Community to solve our common problems. The Government favour concerted action to deal with unemployment. The most significant initiative to tackle unemployment, with an agreement on 40 specific proposals for action by the Community and member states, was taken under the British presidency in 1986.
We favour, too, concerted, sensible action to deal with the problems of the environment. It was under this Government that provision for concerted action on the environment was written into the treaty of Rome. That was one of the major elements of the Single European Act. The hon. Members whose party now puts itself forward as the champion of the environment, kept the House night after night opposing the Single European Act. Yet action on the environment was one of its benefits.
The Community has a role to play in setting standards for equality of opportunity. But none of that can be an end in itself. It may create a kind of equality, but it certainly does not create opportunity, and it is opportunity that we need to create.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the debate on 17 May when I made a fairly long speech about Ispra, the Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs courteous-ly replied:
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked what we wished to see by way of new emphases within those facilities. In my opening remarks I said we felt it regrettable that, for example, the environmental programmes were running at about 14 per cent. Hence, much work remains to be done there."—[Official Report, 17 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 916.]
Can the Minister put flesh on that? Her colleague has said that there is a great deal of work to be done, especially in relation to the joint research centre. Can she be specific about what is to be done?

Mrs. Chalker: I shall not be specific now or I shall take up the time of the House unreasonably. I shall try to give the hon. Gentleman a quick reply if I have the leave of the House to answer at the end of the debate.
In the preface to the pamphlet produced by the British Labour group of the European Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition described the aims of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Europe as
the removal of many of the protections for consumers, citizens and workers which have been built up by national Parliaments over decades and which are seen as rigidities impeding market operations".
Anyone would think that the single market was the sole creation of the United Kingdom, foist in some undemocratic way on our unwilling partners. What nonsense that is. No one would think that the Community's single market agenda for this year had been agreed by all 12 Heads of Government, and that that agenda comprises the liberalisation of capital movements, the opening up of financial services, the liberalisation of transport, the mutual recognition of qualifications and the opening up of public procurement. The White Paper that we are discussing records a notable success in our efforts to liberalise air transport within the Community last year and that should be recognised by the House.
We had an example only this week of what could be achieved once the Community's finances were put on a

sound basis. We were able to agree in the Foreign Affairs Council on Tuesday to a new programme of Community expenditure on youth exchanges. I know that a number of hon. Members were concerned that the introduction of such a scheme should not damage our existing youth exchange programmes. Under the agreement that we have reached, our youth exchange centre will be the designated co-ordinating body for Community youth exchanges in this country. The total United Kingdom Government money devoted to youth exchanges in Europe will increase substantially.

Mr. Eric Forth: My right hon. Friend referred some moments ago to the Opposition's over-bureaucratic approach to the Community, but is she happy about the extent to which the Community seeks to regulate activities within its boundaries? I draw her attention to comparisons that are frequently made between the economic success of the United States over the past 10 to 15 years and that of Europe. I take as one indicator the creation of jobs, which is significantly different. The United States has created many more jobs than the Community. Does my right hon. Friend have any proposals to make to the Community to try to reduce regulations and bureaucracy, to set the economy free and to allow the economy naturally to generate more jobs in the way that the United States has?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is well aware that it is almost impossible to make a direct comparison between the United States of America and the EC, for the simple reason that there are vastly different tax systems in the United States, even between states, and in the member countries of the EC.
However, I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks about regulations. I was a member of the Secretary of State for Employment's committee on breaking down barriers. We have fought consistently, and we shall go on doing so within the EC, to get rid of unnecessary regulations and barriers. But in saying that, let me reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that if a regulation or a barrier is necessary for security or safety, we shall maintain that in the best interests of Britain and the Community. One must apply common sense to regulations and barriers. There are many more to be dismantled and they will be dismantled, but there may be some which, for our own safety and security, we shall have to retain.
Let me return to what I was saying about the way in which we are making progress—steadily, not dramatically, perhaps sometimes for the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) rather boringly, but sound work is often not headline material of newspapers, as he well knows. There is sometimes a tendency to go for the headlines and not do the work. I should prefer to see the work done, whatever the headlines contain.
We have gained agreement from the Commission that the Community should add its weight to that of the United States and other countries in contributing to the International Fund for Ireland which has so effectively supported the economic reconstruction of Northern Ireland and the Republic. That has been the result of a joint initiative by the British and Irish Governments. It is another example of the practical way in which the Community makes its contribution to economic and political development.
I know that to many hon. Members our European agenda is familiar. It is also familiar to those who have witnessed Britain's economic success over the last few years. Our partners, in Europe and beyond, now look to Britain and see not the failed policies of the 1970s, but the success of policies of the 1980s. Fortunately, they do not suffer from political myopia. Conservative or Socialist, they judge Britain by the results that we are achieving and by our successful economic policies. They see the fastest drop in unemployment of any country in the Community. They see the fastest growth. They realise that what has worked at the national level can work at the Community level as well. That is the true measure of the success of our European policies over the last few years. Not only have we achieved essential reforms, but we have, by the success of our financial policies, established a new pattern of policy-making throughout the Community.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: How can the right hon. Lady talk about Britain's great economic success when my constituency—in the area that we both represent—has an unemployment level of 27 per cent.? Although the Government argue that unemployment has gone down in the area, the drop is only minimal. No wonder the right hon. Lady only managed to secure her seat at the general election with a majority of 200.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in blaming the Government for unemployment in his constituency and in mine. Secondly, he is wrong about my majority, although it was perhaps smaller than I would have wished.
Let me explain the sea change that must take place. Britain cannot continue with a policy of economic regeneration which was out of date before the previous Labour Government left office. It was a policy which, sad to say, laid the basis for the rot in so many companies that did not change their method of working and has produced the unemployment that far too many people suffered in the early 1980s. That level is coming down. Unemployment in my area is coming down.
Whatever may be happening in the hon. Gentleman's area, I shall be doing everything that I can through the Community to ensure that unemployment comes down throughout the country. One of the ways that will happen is by the wider opportunities available to British industry that will result from the single market. That is why we are directing a massive campaign of information and publicity to business and the public, to ensure that they are aware of the opportunities offered by the single market and are able to exploit them in the same way that every other country in the Community is doing.
We have reduced unemployment faster than any other European country because we have created more new jobs than any other European country. We have attracted to this country—and to my part of the world—new investment, which would not have come our way but for the economic policies pursued by the Government. We have done that by creating efficient manufacturing and service industries.
Jobs and prosperity will not be created by directives that dictate to companies the structure of their boards or the detailed organisation of the workplace. Jobs will come from expansion into Europe and, through collaborative ventures, expansion beyond Europe. We have achieved many other aims in the period covered by the White Paper and since then. However, it is more important to look

forward, to establish what people want and to define what our combined efforts within the Community can help bring about for the betterment of our citizens.
We want easier and cheaper transport. We want better product standards for consumers. We want the freedom to buy and sell insurance, mortgages and banking services throughout the Community. That is exactly what the single market means. They all touch the lives of ordinary people. Anyone who thinks otherwise is out of touch with today's public, who are buying shares and their own houses. They are out of touch also with those who are unable to own their own homes but are benefiting from improved job opportunities and increased expenditure on health and education, which are the fruits of economic success.
We are now living on the money that British people are earning, and not on the money that the previous Labour Government had to borrow. That is why Britain is enjoying continuing success after seven successive years of growth and with a level of job creation that no other European country is enjoying, and which is envied by our partners.
Our objective has been to achieve all that within a sensible legislative framework. On occasions, the collective action that we take is bound to impose constraints. However, the Community must ensure that such constraints are more than outweighed by the opportunities. If we set the agenda for the Community on the basis outlined by the Labour party in the European Parliament, it would be an agenda of directives and regulations, imposing constraints but not creating opportunities. That is exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). The Government wish to see the minimum number of regulations and the maximum number of opportunities.
When I was much younger, but still very interested in politics, I took to my heart a remark made by President Kennedy in his inaugural address which I believe remains true today:
Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.
Too often, the question is asked, particularly by the Labour party, "What has the Community done for us?", when the proper question to ask is, "What can we do for ourselves within the Community?" Our trade deficit is not a consequence of Community membership; it is a measure of our own failure to take advantage of the opportunities that membership of the Community offers. We will ensure that every company in Britain has the opportunity and the know-how to exploit the opportunities offered by the single market.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): My right hon. Friend has stated that she wishes to get rid of silly regulations and actions. Last week, the Commission put forward a plan to treble the levy on—of all things—budgie seed. That will increase the retail price of budgie seed by 300 per cent., which will affect 4 million people—many of them pensioners. What could be sillier than that? Will my right hon. Friend put a stop to that silliness—which is but one of many examples—and help pensioners make a saving?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East has not only waged a significant campaign to establish Miracle Bus in the Community but, from his reading of The Star, he will know of the problems which


some correspondents like to make the meat of the European Community. I assure my hon. Friend that he need not worry about budgie seed—we shall make sure that it is available at a competitive price through competition within the European Community.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mrs. Chalker: I have already given way once to every hon. Member who wished to intervene. I believe that I should now draw my remarks to a conclusion.
It is fair to say that when Britain joined the Community, the European playing field was uneven. The rules were written for a game that we were not accustomed to playing. We have changed that. We have reformed the inequities and have brought the rule book up to date. I have made clear the way in which we have set the agenda for the 1990s. The six-monthly White Paper before the House records progress made along that route. I commend it to the House. The next White Paper will record the signal achievements of the past six months. They represent a major landmark in the pursuit of this country's interests and those of the Community as a whole.

Mr. George Robertson: This debate marks the usual ludicrously belated tour around the European Community and review of matters which occurred nearly a year ago. To be considering a six-month period in the European Community almost 11 months to the day after the commencement of the relevant period makes a mockery of parliamentary scrutiny of this important subject and exposes the all-pervasive influence of the Community. I have protested from this Dispatch Box before about the delay in considering six-monthly reports. I do so again, but I am pessimistic enough to believe that in six or nine months' time, I shall be making precisely the same complaint. That situation is not good enough when so much of what occurs in the Community affects so many people—ranging from the levy on budgie seed to food prices. To be debating such an out-of-date period of events is ludicrous.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) give me an assurance that Labour MEPs will vote against the directive to treble the levy on budgie seed?

Mr. Robertson: If Labour MEPs thought that I was in any position to give assurances on their behalf, it would send a shudder of apprehension right up their collective spine. However, I am certain that my colleagues in the European Parliament will work to protect the consumer even more than any Government Member has done in the past or is likely to do in the future.
Since the period covered by the report came and went, and as the Minister has bravely reminded the House, there has been held the European summit, which the Prime Minister attended with so many inflexible demands, absolute preconditions and sticking points in mind relating to the key issues which were put before those attending that summit. She returned holding scraps of paper bearing the words, "legally binding guarantees" relating to

financial discipline and curbing agricultural spending. The Minister's apologia for that agreement was as limp as anything in the propaganda she has presented today.
Last Thursday's debate on the Community's finances was to the contrary and told the sobering truth about the promise from Brussels. The chairman of the Conservative party, who moonlights as the Paymaster General and is now lying back on the green Government Front Bench, crept in last Thursday night to inform the House that nearly £1 billion extra would have to be coughed up to cover the immediate, euphemistically titled "problems" of the Community. I intend to return to that in a moment.
We said that the Prime Minister had been conned in Brussels. Now there is visible evidence, in the humbling of Her Majesty's Treasury before the Treasury Select Committee and, last Thursday, before the House. The package that the right hon. Lady was sold in February, which she brought back with such embarrassed bravado to the House that Monday afternoon, is now well and truly falling apart. Our much-vaunted rebate is once more in question, pursued by all those in the Community who ignore their own economic miracles so as to pay as little as possible to the Community budget.
The rigid limits on the common agricultural policy which were to rein it in and reduce its impact—we have heard all about them again from the Minister this afternoon—must be seen in the light of the 19·6 per cent. increase in the cost of the CAP in 1988 over that of 1987. That is the real measure of the restraint that the Minister is dangling before us, in the shape of jam tomorrow. Jam today, in the past 12 months, has meant an almost 20 per cent. increase in the cost of the CAP to the consumers of Europe.
The two outcomes of the Brussels summit were not a guaranteed rebate for Britain, or the legally binding controls on agricultural spending of which we were told and have been told again today. Instead, we have learnt a whole new vocabulary of European creative accounting. Added to the euphemism mountain are two new expressions. We now have "financial engineering", which has appeared suddenly on the scene—and the Great Mechanic of the Conservative party is here to articulate it for us. We also have an "inter-institutional agreement"—an IIA to go alongside the IGA or inter-governmental agreement, the reimbursable advances, the non-reimbursable advances and all the other euphemisms for debt, crisis and financial liability. It is almost like that section in Reader's Digest called "increase your word power". There is a competition in the European Community to invent new words and expressions simply to cover up the fact that more cash is required.
The period that we are discussing covers the period of sabotage of the framework research programme by the British Government, who delayed and delayed its commencement, setting back valuable work right across the Community. They then jumped in and rejoined on almost exactly the terms that they initially rejected. It also covers the period when the Government decided to pull out of the European Space Agency project, and then tried to get in again on the cheapest available terms.
Thus the tangible areas of non-Europeanism were displayed to our friends and allies at a time when the Prime Minister was trying, with a notable lack of success, to impose her conditions—conditions to which we subscribe and on which we supported her—on the uncontrolled budget of the European Community. This Prime Minister


is one of the least communitarian of all Prime Ministers since the war. She despises her fellow Heads of Government, treating them like mere Conservative Cabinet Ministers. She suspects their intelligence and openly displays her contempt for their judgment. She pays, and as a consequence everyone in this country pays, a rich price for the domineering, abrasive way in which she goes about her European business.
I mentioned before the humiliating spectacle of the Paymaster General—the Conservative party chairman—coming back to the House last week to tell us that he was about to bail out the Common Market to the tune of almost £1 billion, which is almost equivalent to our total net contribution last year, and simultaneously introduce primary legislation to agree to a new own-resources formula for the European budget. All that is in advance of the so-called legally binding commitments on future spending. None of it is written down; none of it is agreed; nothing is actually on paper. Yet we in the British Parliament are being told to endorse the new arrangements.
Apart from being procedurally breathtaking, the gambit displays how bad the crisis really is. This time it is wholly appropriate to shoot the messenger, as the messenger is part of the process. The root of the Community's crisis remains in the CAP as it always has, and events in the past week show only too well that the Hanover summit in a few weeks' time may well be dominated like so many before it by a cash crisis caused by agricultural overspending.
Stabilisers—the great new wheeze invented for Brussels: the limits on production beyond which price cuts will be made—were set far too high, far higher than the Prime Minister knew was required, so no real progress can even be foreseen for at least a year. In her speech, the Minister—cleverly, I concede—disguised the fact that any savings as a result of stabilisers will certainly not come in the near future, if indeed in the distant future. Still the waste goes on, with the Community's wealth squandered on storing and destroying food that no one wants.
Opposition Members are often accused of being biased and prejudiced on the issue, and of giving the Government an unfair time. But a recent escapee from the British Civil Service has blown a valuable and well-informed whistle on the whole matter of the CAP. Sir Michael Franklin, who has just retired as permanent secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has written an excellent and highly readable book published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs and entitled, appropriately, "Rich Man's Farming: The Crisis in Agriculture". He paints a dismal picture. It comes from the pen of someone who really knows what he is talking about, and what has gone on in the Community.
Sir Michael tells us that over the past decade agricultural expenditure rose by 7 per cent. per annum, when the wealth of the European Community, measured in gross domestic product at constant prices, grew by only 2 per cent. By 1985, real farm incomes were back at 1974 levels, and in the next three years they dropped in real terms by 3 per cent.—and this at a time when the standard of living in the rest of the Community was rising. Meanwhile the numbers employed in agriculture dropped by 24 per cent. between 1973 and 1983, and continue to drop.
It is a failure of a policy in every one of the respects for which it was designed, designed as it was to protect farm

communities and incomes and to ensure balanced food supplies for the people of Europe. Still the 12 nations of the European Community conspire, either deliberately or through intimidation, to maintain a policy of waste, expense and high food prices which constantly bankrupts the Community of all promise.
Let me deal briefly with the important subject of the Government's accountability to this Parliament for European Community affairs. It is now some considerable time since the Single European Act—carried through the mechanism of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986—came into force, with all the new powers conceded to European Community institutions. I congratulate the Minister on managing, after about a year of the operation of the new amended treaty, to get a published document on to the streets of Britain so that we know what we are up against. That at least shows some efficiency, a year being a commendably short time for the Government to bring those important documents out into the open.
The Single European Act meant more majority voting, with automatic implementation of Community law in this country. It meant more powers for the European Parliament and for European measures. More competence is covered, including European political co-operation—that is, the co-ordination of foreign policy. All that stems from the European Single Act, yet the House has not changed its procedures one jot in recognition of the increasing pervasiveness of European legislation—whether we regard that pervasiveness as good or bad—and the institutions within it.
Looking at the recent European Parliament report, snappily entitled "Bodies Specialising in European Community Affairs Within National Parliaments", I do not wish to make a partisan point, but I was struck by how poorly our Parliament supervises the European dimension.
The House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation has staff but few powers to do more than recommend matters for usually delayed debates in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) chairs that Committee and is recognised for his great skill and industry. It is sad that he cannot be in his usual place today, but he also chairs the Select Committee on the Lyndhurst bypass and is paying a long-arranged visit to the New forest to see where the bypass is to be located. However, I know that he would concede that the staff and the powers of the Select Committee are wholly inadequate to deal with the post-European Single Act era.
The House of Lords Select Committee, which the right hon. Lady chose to mention in her speech, is an admirable institution which does an excellent job monitoring the details and the broad issues involved in the European Community, but it is surely perverse and indefensible that that scrutiny function should exist only in the non-elected Upper House.
The sheer magnitude of the issues which will hit this country, sometimes foreseen but often unpredicted, are not debated regularly and are never voted upon by Parliament, will soon become a scandal unless we create our own institutions to deal with them. It is one thing—and, of course, it is a controversial thing—to concede elements of sovereignty to European institutions, but it is quite another thing—and much more worrying—to


concede the right to monitoring, supervising and even discussing what is being decided in our name outside this place.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to give the House an assurance that action will be taken to get an immediate review of the way in which the House of Commons considers European Community business, perhaps through the vehicle of the Procedure Committee, so that we can ensure the elementary consideration of the very important issues that can affect so many people in this country so often and in so many ways.
I now turn to the completion of the internal European market and its great target date of 1992. Lord Young, who never has to answer critics from both sides of this House, is already spending something like £5 million on yet another media extravaganza that warns, cajoles, hectors and boasts about 1992, its pitfalls and its opportunities. The House and the country would be wise to remain sober about what this business men's Euro-hype is all about.
First, there is already a single market in Europe, albeit incomplete, and Britain has not done very well as a consequence of it. Membership has already seen a flood of European goods drowning many United Kingdom industries. Secondly, the abolition of all remaining restrictions to trade—if such an event were possible—without major changes in attitude by British industry would lead to an even more calamitous devastation of British industry at the hands of our Community competitors.
The disciples of free European trade—the doomed Commissioner Lord Cockfield being in their front rank—see multiplying benefits from removing non-tariff barriers. The Cecchini report entitled "European Challenge", inititated by the European Commission and published this month, is lyrical in its exposition of the remarkable improvements to competition, efficiency and employment that will result from completing the internal market. It claims a 5 per cent. increase in Community, GNP, and a dazzling 1·8 million jobs to be created and to be set against Communitywide unemployment totalling 16 million.
It ill becomes the right hon. Lady, who has a good reputation for being frank and honest, to boast that we have the biggest reduction in unemployment in the Community when we had one of the largest rates of unemployment in the Community—and most of that was created by her Government during the nine years they have been in power.
The unemployment rate in this country in the last 12 months before the 1979 election went down every month. It shot up to ludicrous and shameful levels under this Administration. Therefore, for the right hon. Lady to take credit for managing to achieve marginal reductions is breathtaking in its cheek.

Mrs. Chalker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was once said—and he will remember by whom—that inflation is the mother and father of unemployment. That is what happened under the Labour Government. Inflation put in train unemployment. The high levels of inflation, the failure of the Labour Government to control inflation in the late 1970s and their propensity to go on borrowing caused the unemployment at the beginning of the 1980s.

Mr. Robertson: The right hon. Lady's memory is probably faulty after nine years of struggling to justify the policies of the Government.
In the 12 months before the 1979 election, inflation and unemployment were going down every month. Within months of the 1979 election—if we really need to relive that period—VAT was almost doubled by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the right hon. Lady's boss in the Foreign Office, and unemployment climbed to a historically high level which beat that of our European competitors by a mile. That is what the right hon. Lady finds it so difficult to defend.
The new rose-coloured studies that are being produced mask a complex and wholly unrealistic set of assumptions which have been criticised in detail by reputable research institutes such as the Centre for Economic Relations and DRI Europe. DRI suggests that the increase in GNP will be closer to 0·5 per cent. than to 5 per cent. and that a mere 300,000 jobs will be created.
Those studies, whether they are optimistic or pessimistic, add little to the understanding of what is being contemplated for 1992. Their lack of realism and the sheer hypotheses of their assumptions mean that they should be dismissed as crystal gazing. In fact, I would suggest that the right hon. Lady would be wiser to consult Mrs. Nancy Reagan's astrologer.
Much of what is intended in completing the single internal market is good, sensible and, indeed, overdue. The harmonisation of technical and product standards will make it easier to sell and buy across the Community, as long as the British Government have the same single-minded determination as the French, the Italians and the Germans in making sure that we get a fair share of the technical standards adopted by the Community as part of that harmonisation process, and that we are not left hanging around with continental standards being adopted for everything.
The harmonisation of qualifications will at last make possible the real free movement of labour. The elimination or reduction of wasteful bureacratic border procedures will help industry and trade and those who are involved in it. But the tragedy, or the sinister element behind this great £5 million advertising hype is the vision of a Thatcher-Cockfield package that is being sold to our fellow Europeans in the same way as it is being peddled to the British public.
The Government see 1992 as a vision of Euro-Thatcherism with unrestrained competition, liberated and uncontrolled market forces, wholesale deregulation with no protection for the vulnerable industries, companies, regions and communities around us. This week we heard evidence of that attitude in the words of Mr. David Williamson. The report we are considering notes with some pride that Mr. David Williamson
formerly a senior Cabinet Office official, was appointed Secretary-General of the Commission on 1 October.
I am sure that what he said in London this week about the single market has been drawn to the Minister's attention. He said:
In the UK there is rather a heavy concentration on the internal market as a cash register operation.
That is out of the mouth of somebody who has been through the indoctrination process of the Foreign Office


and the Cabinet Office. He can now tell the truth because he has been liberated from the coat tails of the lady in No. 10. He went on:
The community must also decide accompanying economic, social and structural policy measures if it was to achieve the full benefits of a unified market.
If the Minister can liberate herself from the lady in No. 10, perhaps she will tell us whether she agrees with the Cockfield view of the internal market or with the Williamson interpretation. I am sure that we would all like to know.
There is no question in the Government's mind of seeing intervention as a mechanism for easing transition or to facilitate change. After 1992 there is to be no drive to create alternative employment when jobs are lost, no harmonisation of workers' rights from country to country and no equalisation of anything other than the lowest possible level of health and safety standards, despite the fact that article 118A of the Single European Act, about which the Minister spoke lyrically, provides specific powers for that to be an accompanying measure for any movement towards a completed market. A free market does not make a fairer market and, as Mr. Williamson says, an unfair market will simply not produce the rewards that are envisaged by the programme.
I agree that the single European market will provide opportunities but it will also provide dangers for British industry. It will open the doors to our exporters but it will open doors wide to imports from the Community. It could lead to a considerable new trade for British firms hut, without adequate safeguards, it could see our small and medium-sized businesses die in the fight against European mega-firms. The events of this week in watching the Rowntree takeover only too amply illustrate the dangers that there may be.
In its editorial today, the Financial Times says:
There is a risk that in the rush to prepare for 1992, too many European industries will be concentrated in the hands of a few giant concerns which will be tempted to collude rather than compete.
It goes on to say:
Nevertheless, it would be quite wrong to get carried away with the idea that big is best or that what businessmen think is in their own interests is always good for the consumer.
That is a danger in the single European market that exists for all of us.

Mr. David Curry: Did the hon. Gentleman note that the same editorial in the Financial Times approved the Government's decision not to refer the Rowntree bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

Mr. Robertson: I am not in the least surprised at that attitude from the house magazine for the British capital market. However, it is appropriate that it should warn the Government and the country of the dangers that are in our way if 1992 is simply seen, as Lord Cockfield, the Prime Minister, Lord Young and others see it, as a paradise for big business and trouble for everybody else in the country.

Mr. Tony Banks: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that the advertisements that have been chosen by the Department of Trade and Industry to advertise the benefits of the single market have selected two very big and ugly business men, which seems rather strange to us?

Mr. Robertson: I would not go on the aesthetic merits of Mr. Alan Sugar or any of the others. However, they are big business men and that should worry a lot of people in the country, who, at the moment, have not yet taken on the challenges and risks involved in European trade. Such people would be wise to look carefully at what has happened to Rowntree. The business was built on hard graft, good sense, initiative and enterprise and it is now to be swallowed up simply as a mechanism for giving Nestle or other competitors a bigger slice of the market in Europe. In spite of that, we do not hear a squeak on the advertisements about a stronger competition policy for the Community or any policy on mergers and acquisitions that might give encouragement to companies to believe that they would be protected.
We know that the Government are not concerned with that because they do not have the slightest clue about what the impact of 1992 will be on most British industry. We have repeatedly asked—it has been repeatedly denied—for a sector-by-sector, industry-by-industry study showing the potential impact of 1992. Only in that way can we fully appreciate the risks to British industry and the opportunities that might be opened up. A £5 million television advertising campaign on behalf of British big business is no substitute for that. The Prime Minister clearly sees it as being an unbalanced, uninformed, ill-prepared and doctrinaire plunge into the unknown. Those in this country whose livelihoods are tied in with that future would be well advised to worry about it.
I should like to conclude on a positive note. I would have liked to have started on a positive note but the manifest failures of the Government demand to be exposed for the wasted opportunities that they represent. The Community has promise. There are challenges that it can meet and dominate, given the political will of the leadership in the 12 countries concerned. European political co-operation has seen the development of co-ordinated policies to the outside world and their deployment to the benefit of everyone. The fact that it has pushed the Government into being more radical, sensible and practical than they want to be is all to the good.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Give us an example.

Mr. Robertson: The impending protocol linking the European Community and COMECON, both East and West in Europe, overcoming years of mutual distrust, is a significant step forward for us all. The call on Tuesday by European Foreign Ministers, following the meeting with Foreign Minister Peres of Israel, for more progress on the middle east is an excellent example of the Community using its influence where it can in order to move events forward. In central America, South Africa and Turkey, European political co-operation has meant that a unified European voice has influenced world events that will affect all our nations in time.
That is a process we welcome and we hope that it will be deepened. The opportunities for European co-operation are considerable. In mobilising the momentum of ESPRIT, EUREKA and RACE to face the technological challenge of Japan, in seeing environmental protection as a Europewide problem to be met at a European level, in the idea of a community, not of a free-for-all market, working together on common problems in a small world, we have considerable hope to offer all the people of Europe.
If we see the Community simply as a market, an unregulated free-for-all, where the rich areas, rich firms and rich workers get richer and more powerful and the rest of us are left to rot, we shall have created nothing at all. We shall have simply destroyed all that is good and valuable in the great European Community.

Mr. David Curry: I sometimes feel that debates in the House on the European Community resemble the endless repeats of "Match of the Day" that one sees on television. They tend to be the great debates about who won in Brussels. We have watched every foul, every back pass and every dispute between the linesman and the referee. But everybody is getting thoroughly bored and can remember by heart almost every incident of that episode.
I should like to take advantage of a rare occasion to look at European development from over the hill, especially at some realistic implications of the move towards 1992. It will be refreshing for me to remark on the Community but to refer neither to the Budget nor CAP.
First, I shall comment a little on the campaign for 1992 and the need for a co-ordinated Government policy towards it. The great fanfare for 1992 must be accompanied by economic policy-making decisions that enable British industries to compete in overseas markets. There are now some worrying signs, which it would be unfair not to mention.
There is a parity relationship between the pound and the deutschmark, which gives some businesses cause for concern. Companies are reaching capacity shortages, and that unmet demand is fed by imports. British companies are tending to meet their home market demands before overseas demands, because the profit margins are bigger on domestic trade.
The interest rate cuts that we have introduced in order to stabilise the currency level will stimulate demand, which will in turn feed through into further imports. The United Kingdom is a very attractive import market because of the strength of the pound, and the efficiency and facility of our distribution system.
At the same time, some companies, including those in my northern constituency, are not in the position of those in the great booming southern constituencies that have labour bottlenecks. We must manage our economic affairs so that British industry is given more than an exhortation to meet the 1992 deadline. It would be a tragedy, after all the work to make British business competitive and get rid of the great slack attitude that has lost us many markets overseas, if we traded in another site but could not take advantage of the great movement towards a free market. In many respects, we invented that market in Europe. The great British demand has been, "Give us the real Common Market." We must make sure that we can compete in it.
As a specific example, I recall a speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the conclusion of the Königswinter conference at Cambridge. He said that the way to go forward in Europe is not via the sort of tax harmonisation in the Cockfield package. I agree with him. The way forward is by deregulation. But if the Financial Services Act is our vision of deregulation, that will not help our businesses to compete in Europe. I fear

that that sort of policy might make the City of London one of the great losers from 1992, rather than a great winner. That is particularly so when one considers that it costs five times as much to list in London as in Amsterdam.
We must be certain, not only that business must get out into the markets but that the Government have a duty to provide the broad economic policies that facilitate such an approach.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) mentioned competition in the Community. Clearly there is an urgent need for national monopolies and mergers legislation to dovetail with the EEC legislation. As the Community becomes more integrated, it will become harder to sustain a distinction between takeovers affecting trade across borders and takeovers that do not do so. It is important that we pursue price-fixing agreements and make sure that consumers get the prime benefit of lowering costs, which is the root of supply-side economics. That is itself the basis of the movement towards 1992.
We must be intensely suspicious of the argument that "bigger" is necessarily justified because of a single market. The main benefits should come from the opportunities for mailer and medium-sized companies, especially in the service sector, to reach an optimum size in the market place. There is much less of a case to be made for cross-border mergers of already large concerns. This is a key point. The efficiency of the market must come from the increased size of the market, not necessarily from the increasing size of the players within it.
Perhaps it is ironic that the justification for the Nestle proposal to take over Rowntree plc was not the creation of a monopoly in the United Kingdom, but reduced competition within the Community as a whole, because of fewer players in the Community market place.
What matters is that it is much better for 20 companies to compete in a Continental-sized market place than for a handful to compete in each national market place. The biggest tariff barrier of all is the tendancy for companies to charge higer prices and earn higher profit margins at home and serve their external markets on a marginal cost basis. The threat of more competition at home is essential to persuade companies to lower their prices.
Another important point is that we must resist the silent call from business that, in parallel with the creation of the internal market in Europe, we must institute more thorough-going external protection. First, that would invite retaliation and secondly it would perpetuate the inefficiencies that a single market is designed to eliminate. The development of competition policy in Europe must be a necessary parallel to the creation of a single market place in Europe.
I must also refer to what may be the trend in monetary policy. I am looking over the mountain again, at the considerable implications for business. The development of monetary co-operation is linked inextricably with the achievement of the internal market. It would be silly not to look this straight in the face. This means that national abilities to exercise full autonomy in monetary policy will be diluted. The Community cannot sustain simultaneously free internal markets, free movement of capital, and manage exchange rates and full national autonomy in monetary policy. Those objectives simply do not marry up.
In practice, the defence of an agreed exchange rate may well require enhanced co-operation, which in turn will mean the subordination of certain national monetary aims.There is likely to be a parallel between the


completion of the internal market and a consequent acceleration in the pace of achieving monetary union and accord. That will also stimulate the requirement that a currency is valid coin beyond national boundaries; if you like, we can call it a transnational currency.
Financial operators, after 1992, will be able to do business across borders, and exchange restrictions will be eliminated. If there is free choice in the currency to be used, it is inevitable that a few currencies will predominate. The economies of scale will apply to currency matters, just as they apply in other areas of economic activity. The predominating currencies will have a stable and real value. This represents a possible emergence of a parallel currency in which trade can be conducted, to avoid the scandalously high cost of foreign exchange transactions.
It is worth recalling the time and expense involved in transferring funds between EEC countries. To have to change currencies is just as much a barrier to trade, especially to small and medium-sized companies, as keeping lorries hanging about frontiers is a barrier to trade in physical goods. Only the banks benefit, when they enjoy the float derived from the currency exchange. The average commission of 9 per cent. is really a levy on small businesses. They do not have the option of establishing themselves overseas or investing there. They are now looking towards a classical export situation.
Perhaps the move will be from some sort of parallel currency to a common currency. That will happen if the parallel currency becomes so widespread that it replaces domestic currencies or where a strong convergence of national economies makes it possible to fix exchange rates irrevocably. At that point, a common currency might emerge.
It is worth noting that in a genuine single market there will be room for West Germany to take a more reflationary stance without risking the higher budgetary deficit or inflation rate that is an understandable preoccupation among German leaders now.
If the object of managing exchange rates, through the EMS or broader international agreement is to restore more stable exchange rates—in other words, to restore a system which is akin to Bretton Woods—there is an argument for having the additional advantages also of a common currency. If we have relatively fixed rates without a common currency, there are certain to be residual doubts about how determined the economic management is, and nothing is done to overcome the severe costs of exchanging money.
This is speculation, and I said at the beginning of my remarks that I was planning to speculate this afternoon on what might logically flow from the creation of the internal market. I do not think that these are visionary speculations; they are plausible, potential, practical consequences of letting the market decide. We have said as a Government that our motto in terms of the creation of a single market is to let the market decide what is necessary and whether there has to be an adjustment in rates. If the market is to decide, we must not start complaining if it decides on things that entail certain inconveniences for us.
This is the context in which we have to set the role of the pound. I believe that membership of the exchange rate mechanism is a necessary condition of this financial integration. Fluctuation of the pound against other ecu currencies would make the ecu less acceptable than if the rate against the pound were stable.
The 1992 movement is already exercising an external force. We see it in the pace of investment in the Community by companies that feel that they must get there before 1992, and a lot of that investment is coming to the United Kingdom. I believe that we may also see in the foreseeable future further enlargements of the European Community. The debate has resumed in Norway about the relationship with Europe, because Norway, as a NATO country, will feel extremely exposed if it is dependent upon the United States outside the context of the European Community.
We have seen in both Austria and Switzerland a debate resuming about the nature of the relationship with the European Community. As we know, Turkey has lodged an application. I do not say that these will necessarily result in membership, but the 1992 movement has quite clearly stimulated a change in the political situation throughout Europe, with those countries which could previously get by and manage with associated and special relationships now having to reflect upon their situation.
In the longer term also, there may be implications for defence and security policy, because all the major western democracies are strapped for cash in one way or another when it comes to defence spending. We cannot at the moment produce a NATO defence White Paper, as it were, that allocates the roles in more than general terms, and it may be that if the market takes us towards a greater degree of political association, that will begin to make possible a greater rationalisation of the defence burden. That would be a great economic benefit for all the countries in the European Community.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) raised the question of the implications for the House of the movement towards 1992. I agree with him that it is impossible to say that 1992 will be a purely economic phenomenon, divorced from political implications of any kind. It is not possible to create a sort of apartheid between an economic movement arid the political consequences that may flow from it. That raises the question of the monitoring of legislation in the House. I know that it is fashionable to say that somehow the Danes have got it right because the Folketing manages to bind their Governments. I do not believe that. Theirs is such a tortuous system of proportional representation that it denies any government a firm majority in the Chamber, and it is that that makes Governments' lives so unpredictable. It does not have any success in binding the Government; all it does is make consistent Government policies very difficult to pursue.
I want to suggest something that I know will not find favour with everybody—and I suspect that what I have said already will not be greeted with hoots of joy by everybody. If the House is serious about monitoring legislation it should look to the European Parliament as some sort of partner in the process of maintaining democratic accountability and scrutiny, because otherwise it will not happen. It is important that in this Europe that is developing politically, the notion of democratic accountability should be maintained. That must be done by a process of partnership; it should not be resolved on a competitive basis between Parliaments.
To the Government I would say that at the moment we have everything going for us in Europe. We have a stable Government with four years ahead of them, a strong economic performance and a Prime Minister who has achieved world stature. We are winning the economic


argument throughout the world, because umpteen Governments are now pursuing policies of the kind that have been pursued in the House. European Community policies are increasingly reflecting our own ideas, and the new defence situation, following the series of meetings between Reagan and Gorbachev and the new detente in international relations, is presenting a new challenge to the coherence of Europe and its ability to manage its own defence.
It is important that we grasp the opportunity for the United Kingdom to play a creative role in the Community, in alliance in particular, I suggest, with the French, who are also now heading for a period of stable government and clear leadership. It is very important that we do not pursue a policy of grudging minimalism towards Europe, with a motto that sometimes seems to be "a bridge too short". We have a particular chance; we have caught up a great deal on our deficit; all that remains is to decide whether we want to take it.
I hope profoundly that, under this Government, we shall take that opportunity and play a creative role in the development of Europe; otherwise we shall be overtaken by events. We have a history of joining things just when everybody is ready to move to the next phase. We must not be in that situation now. The choice is entirely ours to make.

Mr. Geraint Howells: It is always an honour to speak in a debate on developments in the European Community. As a Liberal, I am a dedicated European, like all my party colleagues. As the years go by, I am getting more dedicated to the European movement and one of the reasons is, perhaps, that for over 40 years we have had peace within the European Community; we have been able to live with our neighbours peacefully and quietly and we are able to work together in harmony to improve the economic situation within the Community. Many hon. Members may not realise that there are 20 countries or more throughout the world at war at this very moment. How fortunate we are in Britain and in the Community that we are not at war.
This is not just one of the regular six-monthly European debates, for the period we are dealing with represents the first six months of the Single European Act. Things are changing in Europe and the goal of the common internal market in 1992 is approaching fast. I am sure that many farmers in the Community will find it difficult to keep going until we have that internal market. This is a historic moment, a time to consider in which direction Europe should be moving. One thing is clear: the Single European Act and the approach of the common internal market mean that far more decisions are unavoidably being made at the European level, and it is impossible for any of the national Parliaments properly to scrutinise them.
When the goal of the common internal market was first reviewed it was estimated that there would have to be new legislation in about 300 areas within the Community or regions to make it a reality. About one third of those regions have now been dealt with, but it is clear—and the House of Lords Select Committee supports this view—that the present system of parliamentary scrutiny is inadequate. There is what has been dubbed a "democratic

deficit" within the Community. We should therefore recognise that only one body is properly equipped to exercise that vital role—the European Parliament.
We have already agreed to economic cohesion within the Community. We must complement that with a vital democratic element that allows the European Parliament to do its job properly, by giving it proper powers of democratic control and scrutiny. Such a move is about not accumulating power at European level but leaving as much power as possible with the nations and regions, replacing the arbitrary exercise of power at European level with a democratic process. It would be wonderful if that could he achieved by 1992.
Alas, that view is not shared by the Government. They regard the European Parliament as a toothless talking shop, not as a Parliament in the sense that we know. There is no better example of that attitude than the decision that has been taken yet again to hold the next European elections under the first-past-the-post system. Every other EC country will elect its members of the European Parliament by some form of proportional representation—only Britain will not. I say "Britain" advisedly, because Northern Ireland will have the advantage of a fair system. Is every other European country out of step, or is it us? That question must be answered, and I hope that when the Minister replies she will pay attention to what I have said.
How do the Government justify that outrageous distortion of the popular vote? The only argument used against proportional representation for Westminster is the need for so-called strong government—in other words, a one-party majority. For European elections, that argument does not hold water. The European Parliament exists to scrutinise, not to elect a Government.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am listening attentively to the hon. Gentleman, and in the past I have shared many of his views about proportional representation. Will he reflect on the fact that proportional representation enabled Mr. Le Pen to become a major force in French politics? Now that he has become a major force, it will be hard to get rid of him. That is causing me to have second thoughts about the matter.

Mr. Howells: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he will agree that a system of proportional representation would be beneficial to this country and the electorate.
There is no prospect of any party forming a majority in the European Parliament and no reason for the elections being held under an undemocratic system. How can the British Government's decision to oppose proportional representation for European elections be justified?
The problem is that the British perception of the European Community is dominated by the two major parties and the press. The way in which they portray the Community is overwhelmingly negative. The Government take a purely cash-register approach. The building of a supranational cohesion of countries must be undertaken with more enthusiasm if it is to be successful.
When the Government disagree with one of the British Commissioners, a view begins to circulate that he must be replaced when his first term of office comes to an end. Lord Cockfield has taken his responsibilities as Commissioner extremely seriously and has done an outstanding job. It


would be a scandal if he were pushed aside before the completion of the policies that he has done so much to turn into reality.
The way in which the Government use EEC grants is typical of their attitude. When a grant is offered for a purpose, the Government deduct the amount involved from what they would have spent. That is precisely what is happening with the dualling of the A30 through Cornwall. We should demand that EEC spending intended to help the outlying regions is not siphoned off by central Government in that cavalier fashion.
Will the Minister say why the Government keep so quiet about the significant financial contribution that the EC makes to the cost of the youth training scheme and other training programmes? Perhaps the Minister will remind us of the size of that contribution.
The Labour party has taken a purely negative attitude to the EC for well over 20 years. It always failed to jump beyond the established state, in the same way as, until recently, it has feared devolution. It seems that attitudes are changing in the Labour movement. I hope that devolution will take place before the turn of the century and that the people of Wales and Scotland will have their own Parliaments. Who knows, perhaps the English will have regional Parliaments as well by then.
During the six-month period that we are debating there was intense discussion about the 1988 EC budget. Although no agreement was reached by the end of the year, we should be grateful that a settlement was found and that Britain agreed to it. Even in hard economic terms, the value of the common internal market has been estimated at £126 billion a year—about five times the Community's present budget.
If we are to have a common internal market, it is essential to have the back-up of strong social and regional policies to ensure that areas far from the centre of Europe can keep up. If we are to have such policies, they must be adequately financed. The accession to the Community of Spain and Portugal has made that more necessary.
There are many other issues that I should like to raise. As the Minister and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) raised the common agricultural policy and finance, let us remind ourselves that in the Community and in Britain we arc very fortunate that we have plenty of food. Other parts of the world would give their right hand for the food that we have in this country. I am sure that, given the will, there is a way to help them. It is the duty of the Community to do what it can to help.
Our agriculture is the most efficient in Europe. However, if one looks at its record in 1988 and its profit and loss accounts, one sees that confidence in the industry is at a low ebb. We were told by the Inland Revenue that about 50 per cent. of British farmers made a loss in 1986–87. What a wonderful achievement for the Government! Many farmers are talking about survival. It is our duty to try to help them. As I have said before, we are talking about 1992, but there are still four years to go. An internal inquiry would be beneficial to British farmers, enabling them to know whether they are competing on equal terms with others in the Community. If British farmers had that information, they would be willing to compete with their counterparts.
A great deal has been said about stabilisers. The present proposals will not be of benefit to many British farmers. If

we have stabilisers they must be fair, and British farmers must be able to compete on equal terms with others in the Community.
We should remain loyal to our friends in the Community. I believe that the survival of this great country of ours lies within the bounds of the Community.

6 pm

Mr. David Howell: My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). in an excellent speech, made what he described as -speculative" comments about the current and future development of the European Community. I disagree on only one point. We are addressing the immediate issues of the European Community—issues that were unfolding and demanding our attention last year during the period covered by the White Paper. I should dearly like to think that my ministerial colleagues and their advisers are turning their minds to these issues and are moving away from some of the drearier and more difficult problems that have dogged every discussion in recent years about the Community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon was right to point out that we had reached a point of vast significance in European Community affairs—the first signs are in the White Paper—when a number of powerful influences and tides are flowing the British way. There are huge opportunities, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will describe how the Government will exploit some of them.
First, there is the obvious point that, at last, we seem to be making some small progress—not everyone would agree—in curbing the CAP monster and establishing the principle, if no more than that at this stage, that the purpose of rural economic policy should be to curb rather than encourage massive over-production of unwanted foodstuffs at vast costs. We have been engaged in that fight for years. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been at the forefront and may yet end up, whether she wants it or not, with the label of the best European of them all, by establishing that we need a policy for rural economic development in Britain and Europe rather than a policy for increasing agricultural production. We are moving on that front.
Secondly, as the White Paper reveals in paragraph 2.15, things are moving on the monetary front, with the development of new thinking about more effective Communitywide monetary co-ordination. The British Government have been the slowest to move, and there may be high prices to pay for the delay. There is a new phase of views about the European monetary system and how it will play its part in the global financial structure that is emerging to replace the collapsed world order based on the dollar.
Thirdly, there is the goal of the single market. There has been hype by some politicians, but changes are occurring. There are directives already and it is not a matter of waiting until 1992. The business men or Governments who wait until then will find that it is too late. Why should we wait for 1992? There are already 100 directives either approved or in the pipeline that totally change the financial and corporate structure of European industry and commerce, and there are many more to come. The goal of the single market is vital and we shall hear much more about it.
Fourthly—this influences what happens in the Community—ideas and policies are on the march about the defence of Europe and the structure of the defence industries behind the defence of Europe. In the post-intermediate nuclear forces scene thare has been much questioning about how to develop a more coherent European defence pillar without undermining the North Atlantic Alliance. This changes the mood in Europe. We need not go back as far as the failed European Defence Council of the 1950s. New thoughts are developing. The French, who must decide whether to rejoin completely the NATO military structure, are taking a much more positive and constructive view of their dormant NATO membership. These enormous changes are reflected in a number of paragraphs in the White Paper.
I should like to pick out two of the four aspects that I have discussed—the single market and European monetary integration, as expressed by the European monetary system. Are they connected? My unequivocal answer is that they certainly are. It is an illusion to think that this island can gain the benefits of the growth of a single market without us understanding that we must be members of the European monetary system. The two are connected, and one cannot work without the other.
It is fantasy to think that there can be a single market for goods and services and for the transmission across borders of financial services and the products of knowledge-intensive industries—a single market that comes into being in the way urged by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others as a new super-power—without economic and monetary co-ordination and a framework within which currencies can achieve reasonable stability.
No such system could emerge without European monetary integration of the kind expressed by the EMS in its present state. The White Paper—with its references in paragraphs 2.13 and 2.15 to the need for exchange rate stability in the world, including Europe, and the need to develop, refine and improve the European monetary system—takes us into the heart of the political and policy issues which we should address. It is good that we have an opportunity to consider these matters.
I should like to elaborate on why the crucial issue of monetary co-ordination is the key to unlocking all the potential advantages of the single market which may otherwise be denied to us. It is obvious that, if a highly volatile currency such as sterling is outside the less volatile zone of the existing currencies within the exchange rate mechanism, it is a highly awkward factor in a single market. It is ironic that we were told that the problem of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS was that sterling's inclusion would mean frequent and embarrassing realignments and that we must not do that because it would show up the fact that sterling was moving away from the deutschmark, dollar or whatever. It was said that it would be embarrassing and that the Opposition would crucify the Government.
After the events of recent weeks I should much prefer the mild squalls of a currency realignment in Brussels, perhaps upward of the pound—which is, rightly, a strong currency—than the traumas of a political storm of the kind into which we have been dragged in recent weeks. The frequent realignments that we are bound to have in the

EMS offer a much better and calmer prospect than the internal embarrassments and awkwardnesses of arguments about the sterling rate outside the EMS. So, even on these narrow practical and political grounds, we would do better to think of the pound as belonging to a co-ordinated European system rather than as a currency waiting unanchored and unmoored to be knocked about by the bow waves of everyone else's currency policies.
Secondly, we must consider the position of industry and its prospects in the single European market in the context of the European monetary system. I am not one to support the moaners in British industry who always want the currency to be lower than it is. We have a strong currency because we are a strong country, and it will remain strong. Like the Japanese, we must be determined to live with a strong currency and import low prices. That way, we shall remain highly effective with massive value added and develop and accelerate our colossal economic recovery. Nor is it realistic to demand zero volatility of currencies. Currencies move from day to day and week to week and business men must learn to hedge against such developments, even if that is an additional difficulty.
There is a strong industrial and commercial case, however, for a medium-term consistency in our objectives for the currency. In other words, there must be a framework in which the Government are known to be trying to operate. The European monetary system offers such a framework. While the White Paper was being prepared, we were operating within a framework, but on a shadow basis. Towards the end of last year and at the beginning of this, we appeared to be shadowing the deutschmark. That gave industry the broad understanding that, within a certain range and allowing for certain movements, the Government had a rough view of the exchange rate that they would like for sterling. They had a sort of policy for sterling.
We need to return to that. I do not know whether it will be at a higher rate, although I suspect it will. We must have a policy, and the framework of the EMS offers that policy in a way that will make it politically much easier to handle than being out on our own. That is essential if industry is to exploit the opportunities of the single market, as other countries in the Community clearly will.
We need also to consider the single market as it affects financial services industries and the liberalisation of capital movements both of which were dealt with in the White Paper. It is an illusion that we shall achieve the true liberalisation of capital movements in the European Community—between the great financial centres of Frankfurt, London, Paris, Milan—unless we have a reasonable framework governing the relative exchange rates. Unless the EMS is further developed and strengthened and unless sterling is included in it, capital movements will not be liberalised. Anyone who envisages colossal potential gains for our huge financial services industry, with its millions of jobs and its £7 billion-worth of export earnings—to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred this afternoon—without a strong European currency system of which sterling is a part, is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. We have to face that realisation soon, because the two matters cannot be separated.
Finally, let me deal with the larger question that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and others have been addressing vigorously on the world scene. We are blind if we cannot see that the era of the dollar as the international


reserve currency is coming to an end. Huge instabilities are building up as people try to find a new system to replace it. They ask, "Should we go back to Bretton Woods or should we go on to something new?" One thing is certain: if we stay where we are we shall suffer more of the financial earthquakes and tidal waves of which we had the first intimation last October. There will be many more unless we have a more stable international system.
The European element of that system is a key building block. Britain has already played a decisive role and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is a financial statesman of world standing. Even his critics in the Opposition and elsewhere must concede that. He has played a decisive role, through the Group of Seven countries, in trying to carry forward discussions to find a replacement for the old crumbling dollar standard. However, that will not work until G7 becomes G3. By that I do not mean America, Japan and Germany but America, Japan and Europe—the essential element in the new stable world financial system that we must have.
It is Britain's proper responsibility to make what contribution it can to the building process, not only by taking an active part in the G7 discussions but by playing a positive role in strengthening the European currency bloc and providing one of the three foundations of the trilateral financial order to support replacement for the old dollar reserve currency system.
It is no use wringing one's hands and saying, "But that implies a loss of sovereign independence." Unless we establish a global system in place of the dollar system, with which we have lived for 40 years, and unless Europe plays a part in it, we shall be swamped. We shall suffer vast instability of the kind of which we have already had some suggestion in recent months. We shall be tossed aside. Sterling will be kicked around like a football by forces far outside our control. Sovereign indepencence and the power of self-determination in governing our currency will mean absolutely nothing. The more we talk about that concept and believe it the more the control of our currency—an intimate matter in our social welfare and progress will be taken completely out of our hands.
Those who talk about the need to control our destiny should look to where the powers lie to do that. They should understand that, if they stand back from allowing the development of a more co-ordinated EMS and the liberalisation of capital movements and the single market for industrial and other goods and services associated with it, they are the ones who are letting go on sovereign independence and surrendering self-determination.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has battled vigorously and with great determination in endlessly tedious meetings of the Council of Ministers at which, as some of us recall, one sits up all night fighting about commas and dots. My right hon. Friend's efforts have been second to none in the fight to get some sense into the new directives and the new shaping of the Europe that is emerging. The efforts of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have been second to none in trying to get out of the way the lunatic nonsense of the old common agricultural policy, with its emphasis on producing more and more food that no one wants at higher and higher cost, which leads in the end to the damaging and undermining of rural Europe and the rural economy rather than its reinforcement.
Let my right hon. Friend the Minister of State turn her able and agile mind, and encourage her colleagues to turn

their minds, to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, because they are the issues on which we need a policy and the issues that we must discuss in the House. If we do not have such a policy—if we stand back from it—others will race ahead. That would be a tragedy, because we are no longer a passenger in Europe. We are not in the second tier. We are not a junior member. We are one of the most powerful economies in Europe. We do not have to sit aside and watch France and Germany being the big boys and doing all the allying.
To stand aside now would not just be yet another missed opportunity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon said; it would be to opt out of our major responsibilities in re-establishing the new economic pattern upon which world progress and economic development will proceed. These are much bigger issues than the question of cereal prices or milk quotas, although those are vital. These are the issues which the House fails at its peril to address.

Mr. Pat Wall: I do not wish to make a wide-ranging speech, as other hon. Members have, but I wish to refer specifically to item 11.8, "South Africa", contained on page 29 of the White Paper, which states:
The Twelve remain committed in working for the initiation of a process of peaceful change in South Africa. They maintained their programmes of positive measures to assist the black South African community, and continue to implement the restrictive measures on which they agreed in October 1985 and September 1986.
One of those positive measures to assist the black South African community was the EEC code of conduct, adopted in September 1977 by the then nine members of the Community. It was a code for EEC-based companies with interests in South Africa. It laid down guidelines in relation to wage rates, the employment of migrant labour, the racial structure of the work force, the advancement of black workers, the revision of fringe benefits and the designation of work places. The code is voluntary, but it has not produced any significant changes. Last week I spoke to South African trade unionists visiting this country and they said that they regarded the EEC code of conduct as a joke, and that that was a view shared generally by black workers in South Africa.
Under the code, companies were obliged to present an annual report on the progress made in implementing those points I have outlined, with emphasis on three issues: the right of workers to join, and be represented by, a trade union of their choice; a minimum wage at least 50 per cent. above the so-called minimum living level, which is a level simply for the survival of workers and their families and no support for the system of migrant labour.
In 1979 the newly elected Conservative Government ended the practice of publishing the names of companies failing to meet the EEC code, including Quinton Hazel, of which the Prime Minister's husband was then a director.
In 1985 the code was modified, with companies being asked to pay only 28 per cent:. above the subsistence wages, instead of 50 per cent., by replacing the minimum living level with the supplementary living level.
According to Labour Research, 234 United Kingdom companies have subsidiaries and associates in South Africa, which account for 40 per cent. of foreign investment. Further, eight British companies appear in the list of the top 100 companies in South Africa. Last year


Britain was South Africa's third largest trading partner after Japan and West Germany, which is also a signatory to the EEC code of conduct. In 1987 exports from the United Kingdom rose by 11·8 per cent. to £949 million, although imports fell by 20 per cent. to £658 million.

Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that that substantial increase in British exports to South Africa helps to create jobs for British industry?

Mr. Wall: There are plenty of markets in the world. We do not have to use a market where people are exploited to the extent that they are in South Africa.
Imports from the EEC countries fell by £810 million in 1987, but exports increased by £60 million. Those changes do not reflect a reduction in trade, but only the changes in currency that took place. There is no sign that the sanctions agreed by the EEC, or the code of conduct, are being applied properly for South Africa.
Labour Research examined the reports of 118 companies reporting under the EEC code. It found that 25 companies pay 1,916 black workers less than the EEC recommended minimum. Seven of those 25 companies pay at least 321 black workers less than the subsistence level, which is a starvation wage. Only 51 of the 118 companies have recognition agreements with trade unions in South Africa. Ten companies failed to give sufficient information to determine what they pay to their employees or how many employees they have. Those companies include names such as Blue Circle Industries, Commercial Union, GEC, IMI, Tarmac and Redland.
The standard of wages in most cases is pitiful. Loring Rattray, a subsidiary of Shell, pays its employees £25 per week, which it claims meets the EEC standards. Courtaulds does not accept that a relevant EEC rate exists. It pays £46 per week to households where both husband and wife work for that company.
In the past 18 months at least 16 British companies have been involved in labour disputes. Those include such famous names as ICI, Thorn EMI, Johnson Matthey, Plessey, Pilkington, Shell, Trafalgar House, BP and Unilever.
The most notorious case concerns BTR—the well known takeover and asset-stripping company. It shamed this nation with a dispute at Hangers, the firm that makes artificial limbs. In May 1985 it sacked 900 workers in a South African factory. That dispute continues today. Two strike leaders and a daughter of one of the strikers were abducted and murdered by vigilantes from the Inkatha movement. The management which fought the workers' union, the Metal and Allied Workers' Union, an affiliate of the Congress of South African Trade Unions—which now has a membership of a million workers—nevertheless recognised the gangster union, NUMSA, the National Union of Mineworkers of South Africa, which is directly linked to the murders that took place in that factory.
One press report estimates that 49 dismissed workers have died from starvation or starvation-related diseases since that lock-out began. The EEC code of conduct is largely ineffective, as are the limited sanctions applied by the EEC to South Africa. The British Government continue to do the absolute minimum to carry out the provisions of the EEC.
Despite promising that there would be no Government funding for trade missions to South Africa, such visits continue under the direction of the United Kingdom-South Africa Trade Association, as do visits by groups of Tory Members.
The Department of Trade and Industry continues to publish material to assist companies with trade and investment in South Africa. While 61 companies—to their credit—have withdrawn from South Africa since 1985, others continue to invest and enjoy the profits that accrue from low wages and the apartheid system.
Opposition Members believe that all trade links should be broken with the apartheid regime in South Africa, and that full sanctions should be applied. Even if the Government will not adopt that policy, they should insist that the EEC code of conduct is carried out with regard to the employment of migrant labour, the payment of decent wages, trade union recognition and a refusal to carry out the new anti-trade union laws that the South African Government are proposing. The Government should insist that the other 11 members of the EEC will meet those requirements.
The code of conduct and sanctions alone will not fundamentally change the situation in South Africa. They are the minimum that we can do to aid the struggle against that evil and disgusting regime. My faith is clearly in the working people of South Africa to change the system, and to do away with apartheid and with the big business interests that profit from that system and prop that system up.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I do not question for one moment the sincerity of the views of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) on South Africa. He has campaigned about that issue for many years. Although I might disagree with his sentiments, I agree absolutely with his central point. He said that the EEC policy was one of make-believe; that it was not working and that all we are doing is trying to convince ourselves that something is happening, when it is not. I should like to make the simple point that almost every sentiment expressed so far in the debate has been on the basis of make-believe.
The Minister paid tribute to the fact that we might get a bus from Southend, starting from tomorrow. I am sorry that she did not have the time to explain what has happened in relation to that bus and that that bus might never arrive in Frankfurt because there is not yet an agreement on where the bus can stop. We have regulations on transport and buses which should have enabled that to be agreed three years ago. Since then, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has discussed the issue personally with Herr Genscher.
The Minister has taken up the matter on infraction proceedings in the Commission. I was one of six people from Southend who flew over with the British ambassador to meet a man who was described as the chief transport civil servant in Bonn, to discuss the question of the Southend bus. When we met him we found, sadly, that he is still designated as having responsibility for the Berlin airlift. When we pointed out that that had ceased some time ago, he explained that his designation had not changed. The rules and the regulations which were abundantly clear should have allowed a bus to travel from


Ostend to Frankfurt, but we have had three years of non-stop harassment and bureaucracy in an endeavour to sort the matter out.
My fear is that all the high-flown sentiments about what Europe can do and what 1992 might mean get away from the central point that, for this country, the EEC is still a sick and costly joke, and that many of its so-called aims will not only not be realised, but cannot be realised.
Let us take first the issue which has been mentioned so often—the common agricultural policy. We are told once again, as we have been told three times before, that that issue is well on the way to being resolved and that we are going to have stability, control and legally binding restraints on spending. Apart from the fact that some of the expenditure may now be legally bound, that is exactly the story that we were told at the time of Fontainebleau. Last week, the delightful and courteous Paymaster General admitted that last year we had to operate a ten-month year so that the Common Market would be within the restrictions that had been agreed at Fontainebleau, and that is what happened.

The Paymaster General (Mr. Peter Brooke): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I think that he would be the first to acknowledge that the grounds for the ten-month year last year was the use by the Community of the doctrine of "exceptional circumstances", a doctrine which, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree, had been nefarious in its implications and applications. By setting up the reserve fund under the new arrangements, the "exceptional circumstances" loophole cannot be used in future.

Mr. Taylor: I am delighted that my hon. Friend said that about the exceptional circumstances clause. My understanding was that the ten-month year went considerably beyond "exceptional circumstances", but he is right in saying that the exceptional circumstances clause allowed the EEC to spend whatever it liked so long as it said that there were exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstance clause is now re-written into the new agreement and although the answer is that it could work in both directions, I question whether it will work at all because there are plenty of other ways in which expenditure can be changed. I do not believe that it will be restricted.
We are told that there will be stabilisers which will curb spending. We heard that from the SLD representative, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), as well. The Minister must know what has happened to the so-called stabilisers. Let us take wheat as an example. What is this year's proposed expenditure for wheat? There is a massive increase because the stabiliser works only when the provision for last year has been exceeded. Even then, the reduction is only 5 per cent., which, in any event, is an artificial figure, bearing in mind the changes made by the member states themselves.
We should accept, and not kid ourselves, that there is no way in which the common agricultural policy will ever he reformed sensibly and rationally by the EEC because of its structure. That cannot happen unless agreed by member states, and some country will always be having an election. It does not help the Common Market, the British Parliament, or anyone, if we have the constant myth of holding debates every so often in which hon. Members make visionary comments about all the great things that

might happen in 1992 or 2002, when we know that the EEC is not able to deal with its practical and real problems.
I was interested by the spokesman for the Social and Liberal Democratic party, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, who said, "Isn't it sad that we have all this extra food when lots of people in the world would like to have it?" He must know—I hope that he accepts this—that those people are poor because the Common Market is shamefully dumping its surplus food around the world at crazy low prices, thus depriving the poor countries of decent prices for their food. That is why such countries cannot pay their debts or buy machinery. The hon. Member must know that £220 million has been spent on that every week this year.

Mr. David Howell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Taylor: My right hon. Friend is shaking his head, but I can assure him that that figure was given in a parliamentary answer that I received three weeks ago from a Minister.

Mr. Howell: I did not shake my head at my hon. Friend's detail, because he is a master of detail and I always admire his dogged and rugged fight on the nonsenses of excess agricultural production. I shook my head simply because people in Ethiopia are dying and will die in much larger numbers not because of shortages of food—the food is there—but because it cannot be moved by roads because of the political warfare and civil war. It does not have anything to do with food production.

Mr. Taylor: I certainly accept that there is a war in Ethiopia and that that is an additional problem. However, I suggest that, if the war ended and Ethiopia had peace once again, it would suffer as so many other countries in the Third world are suffering because of the shameful and cruel policies of the EEC which are inflicting devastation and destruction on poor countries.
My hon. Friend must know that we are paying people three times the world price to produce wheat and he must know what we are doing in relation to the price of sugar. If we are crazy enough to want to pay those high prices and to force our communities to pay those high prices, that is a matter for ourselves. We know from the Treasury's own paper that we are forcing the average British family to spend £11 per week more for their food than they would if it were not for the CAP. If we want to do that, that is our own business, although it is bad for the economy, for our competitiveness and for our business. What we are not entitled to do is wreck world markets and cause so mach damage to the Third world by our dumping policies.
I had the pleasure of raising a question in the House about New Zealand's butter the other day. I got plenty of shouts, and people who disagreed with me said that it was terrible that New Zealand should have its throat cut on those exports. However, we should be aware that, when New Zealand tries to sell its butter anywhere else in the world, whether in Japan, in Korea or even in Russia, it finds Common Market salesmen selling butter for 6p per pound. That is what they are doing at special sales. It is recorded in a written answer that there was a special sale of 240,000 tonnes to Russia last month.

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Community sold butter at a low price to the Soviet Union. However, does he agree that in this circumstance New


Zealand approved of that sale? It has a common interest with the Community in raising the world price of butter because otherwise it is trying to sell a commodity on which it is dependent for exports at low prices which do not represent a proper rate of return. Some of us heard the chairman of the New Zealand Dairy Board, Mr. Jim Graham, say quite specifically that he approved of the Community's disposal programme because it offered the hope of getting prices back in balance. My hon. Friend's general remarks are right, but New Zealand subscribed to those circumstances.

Mr. Taylor: I do not want to go into too much detail, but my hon. Friend may be misinterpreting what New Zealand Ministers have said. They said that, rather than a continuing year-by-year consistent dumping, they would prefer an accelerated dump which was part of last year's agreement to try to get rid of the existing mighty dump, on the understanding that it would not happen again. That is rather different from saying that the sale at 6p a pound was approved by the New Zealand Government. We are doing something cruel and nasty to New Zealand and other countries.
I am surprised that the Liberal party of all parties, which is meant to care about people and have some feeling for them, does not recognise that and do something about it. We know that organisations such as Oxfam constantly plead with Parliament to do something about this—but do we care? Rather than talk about visionary sentiments to do with how we are going to have the leading currency in the world and a new kind of trade structure, we should face up to doing something practical about a problem that is killing people and causing starvation and misery in the world, due to our wrongful policies. But sadly, nothing has been done.
The Paymaster General must know that things will not change because of these so-called reforms. There is not the slightest sign of that. Expenditure on dumping is up in 1988, as is expenditure on agriculture. The Minister must know these facts. Europe is proposing only a minor stabiliser for cereals and spending will increase even further. I appeal to hon. Members not to continue with visionary sentiments such as those that prevailed at the time of our original membership and of the Single European Act, but to try to do all in their power to persuade the Common Market to solve this real problem.
On the basis of what is contained in the White Paper, it is clear that there is only one way to go about this—to use the single power that we have, and every so often to say no to more spending. Sadly, it is recorded in the White Paper that we agreed to give a massive extra amount of money to the Common Market to spend, and we know exactly how it will be spent: on causing high food prices at home and devastation in the Third world.
Also, in the context of make-believe, I remind the Government of Britain's net contributions to the EEC. We were told at Fontainebleau that things would improve—that there would be refunds, which I am sure we have had. But can the Paymaster General explain what went wrong in the year that ended on 5 April 1988? The Government gave us four estimates. First, we were told that the net contribution was likely to be £500 million. Suddenly, it became £700 million; then it grew to £900 million; and then the Treasury White Paper said that it would be £1·5

billion. What is happening to the tight control of spending if our estimate of the net contributions for the year that has just ended was so wildly out? Recently, in a written answer, the Prime Minister said that last year's figure might have to be increased by £200 million because of changes that have taken place.
Why should we continue with this make-believe about trade? I happen to be a director of several companies, including an insurance company that trades throughout the world. One of the countries in which we operate is Germany, and we find that trade with that country is certainly not simple. The Minister must know what has happened. We always had a reasonable surplus in our trade with the EEC, but since membership that trade has gone crazily wrong. The latest figures for the year that has just ended were as follows: imports from the Common Market, £38·5 billion of manufactured goods; exports to the Common Market, £27·7 billion. That is a gap of more than £11 billion. Treasury Ministers are well aware that if anything will threaten the future prosperity of our country, the trade gap will.
It has been suggested by some that this is our fault—that somehow British managers, workers and trade unionists are at fault, because while the Germans have been rushing to send things here, we have not been rushing to send things to them. Why has our trade with the Common Market gone so abysmally wrong, yet our trade with the rest of the world has improved to such an extent that we can still keep our heads above water? Something is seriously wrong, and it is likely to grow worse.
I ask the Government to stop the make-believe about the harmonisation of taxation. I was delighted to hear the Paymaster General's assurance that the Government were going to use their veto to stop the imposition of VAT on food, fuel and children's clothing. But the Government must know that the Commission has proposed a massive programme of tax harmonisation, the basic feature of which is a huge reduction of the tax on alcohol and tobacco and a massive increase in tax on essentials—on a whole range of items from transport to newspaper.
If we are not going to harmonise liquor taxation it is almost impossible to see how we can have a completed market. If people are to be allowed to move freely from one place to another the position is not like American states, between which there are only minor differences—the tax on wine in Britain must be cut by 85 per cent. and that on liquor by £2·85. How can we have a free market without such harmonisation? At some stage the Government must face up to that problem. They cannot say they will look into the issue and set up committees. They must give us broad guidance about whether they accept the general principle of a huge cut in alcohol tax and a massive—

Mr. John Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend recommending the harmonisation of indirect taxation on wine, spirits and cigarettes?

Mr. Taylor: As my hon. Friend knows, I am not recommending that. It would be difficult to get such a measure through the House, although it is likely to happen if 1992 is to become a reality.
We are kidding ourselves and indulging in make-believe when we suggest that 1992 is directly related to trade. It is about the harmonisation of such things as tax. It is foolish to pretend that we are talking about trade issues. However,


the Government will make their decisions on these issues and I doubt whether what I or anyone else says will make a great deal of difference. Nevertheless, I hope that they will reflect on the extent to which the European institutions have recently shown their intention and wish to extend their authority and reduce that of the national Governments substantially. There have been recent examples of that, and I hope that the Government will at least say that they are worried about the extent to which the non-elected, non-democratic institutions of Europe are seeking to extend their powers.
Two weeks ago, the EEC Commission decided to put a ban on apple imports into this country and others. It was a total ban on American, Canadian and Chilean apples—and those of certain other countries—and tight quotas that amounted to a ban were applied to New Zealand. The ban meant that we had to send back ships that were on their way here and many people lost a great deal of money. It also meant that housewives in Britain will have limited choice. We all know that the problem is the glut of 350,000 Golden Delicious apples, which are mainly produced in Italy and Greece and which are more than a year old. So we tell our consumers that they should eat these old apples instead of the ones that they might have preferred from America, Canada or Chile.
The interesting thing is that on all previous occasions when the Commission has tried to put a ban on a product such as this, it has consulted member states and our Government first. On this occasion there was no consultation, and it strikes me that that is a new pattern that we should watch out for.
Secondly. the Commission put forward proposals for 1992 on the basis of article 100A—majority voting—even though Mr. Speaker's counsel made it clear that that appeared to be an abuse of powers. It means that summer time for the United Kingdom will be decided by a majority in the Council of Ministers, and quite soon at that. According to our legal advisers, the Commission was wrong in this case to decide the matter by majority vote when it had no reason to do so.
Thirdly, we had the rather unusual and strange proposal to tax budgie seed. It was regarded as a small and peripheral matter in European terms, but it is rather important to the 4 million budgie owners in Britain. The proposal is not to impose a minor change but to increase the levy on such seed from £25 to £119, the sole reason being to harmonise the levies on budgie seed and on barley. I ask the Minister whether the matter was decided by a majority vote and whether the Government had any particular views.
The fourth point that should worry us is the extent to which the European Court is taking powers of taxation from the House. It was announced only this morning that the Government are bringing forward an amendment to the Finance Bill for the sole purpose of bringing in the changes that were proposed by the European Court of Justice. It told the Government that, against their wishes, they must charge VAT on spectacles and hearing aids. The European Court is shortly to make a judgment on whether we should also pay taxation.

Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend referred to a decision by the European Court. Does he agree that that decision interpreted the sixth VAT directive, which was passed by the House in 1977? How did he vote on that occasion?

Mr. Taylor: Precisely, no, but my hon. Friend is well aware that, whenever there is a vote on such issues, my vote is usually in the other direction. The Labour party was in power on that occasion, and I was not in the shadow Cabinet at the time. I shall look up the matter and tell my hon. Friend what the position is. When we were in opposition, Conservative Members took a firm, robust and patriotic stance on such matters.
The European Court is substantially extending its power and authority in relation to the sixth directive and other matters. As my hon. Friend will be concerned to know, in a few weeks it will decide whether the British Government should be instructed to levy VAT on gas, electricity for industry, water, sewerage, new services, and all new industrial and commercial buildings. It worries me that a non-elected group of foreign judges is able to determine what taxation should be levied on citizens of the United Kingdom.
I have put my points not so that visionary individuals will be able to say, "Here is someone who is always niggling and cannot see broad horizons," but simply to appeal to the Government not to be carried away by glossy stories and dreams. Let the Government accept the simple fact that reform of the CAP will not happen and that the only way we shall safeguard our farmers and European finances is to seek the repatriation of agriculture from the EEC, and that can be achieved only if we say no to more money.
Let the Government face our contributions and start trying to get their figures right, instead of always getting them wrong. Let them face the significance of an appalling trade gap with the Common Market. It substantially threatens the future of our country. There are good reasons for that, as the Minister well knows. We should appeal to the Common Market to start solving some of the real problems before it now, and not just to give a 30 per cent. pay rise and tell people to go on dreaming, as it is doing now.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is like old times following the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). I content myself with the friendly thought that, had the hon. Gentleman been Secretary of State for Scotland in a Conservative Government, the face of Scottish politics would be different.

Mr. Foulkes: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the current trend of politics in Scotland continues, it is likely that, after the next election, the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) could again be the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Dalyell: I had better be careful. I agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East on one matter, and that is the importance of millet seed not only for budgerigars but for pigeon fanciers. I tremble before few organisations, but one is the formidable local pigeon fanciers organisation. A wise politician does not cross pigeon fanciers. I tried to interrupt the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on what will be done about the soaring price of millet seed. The matter may be a bit of a canard, but I should like a serious answer.
Paragraphs 1.4 and 15.2 of the EEC document refer to David Williamson, the first. British Secretary-General. I take this opportunity to wish him well. In the same breath,


I say a big thank you to Emile Noel, a Frenchman of wit and wisdom, who showed kindness to the indirectly elected incoming British European parliamentary delegation. I shall always have good thoughts of that charming Frenchman. I do not know whether he thought that we should have joined the EEC, because we were not sufficiently Communautaire, but that did not prevent his giving of his time and experience to those new Members who asked about the Byzantine ways of the Community. Emile Noel was a great European civil servant.
On 17 May, I asked a specific question about Ispra. I am glad that the Paymaster General is present. I say quite openly that, in his incarnation as Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, he was a good science Minister with a genuine interest in his portfolio. He knows about the problems of Ispra. I asked whether it is sensible to conduct negotiations with the JRC and whether it should become more involved in radioactive waste management.
Paragraph 1.10 refers to transport. I am a National Union of Railwaymen-sponsored Member. Earlier in the week, my colleagues and I spent some hours with Sir Robert Reid, the chairman of British Rail, discussing the Channel tunnel. I have one question relating to the vexed issue of customs. It involves the Treasury, the Home Office in relation to immigration aspects, and the Department of Transport. It is profoundly unsatisfactory that, at a cost of £15 million, £20 million or whatever, a great customs terminal is apparently to be built at Waterloo, while the French and our other European partners are prepared to conduct customs operations on board trains. What kind of sense does it make to have matters officially dealt with in the Pas de Calais, but the prospect of endless queues at Waterloo station, apart from the problem of having a 47 mph limit in Britain and 115-plus on the continent? We have real problems, and I hope that a combination of Ministers will sort them out.
Paragraph 6.5 refers to AIDS and cancer research. I repeat the view of Professor Ken Murray FRS, of the department of biochemistry at Edinburgh university, and many others that, possibly, the best way of giving money to cancer research on a European basis is to help distinguished individuals in university departments. The Paymaster General had some sympathy with that view when he was in the Department of Education and Science, but what is the Government's policy on that?
In paragraph 12.5 there is a reference to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, visiting the European Parliament. It is a personal view—I cannot say that it is shared by my colleagues—but is it not a bit churlish to send to the European Parliament a Minister of State? Should not that be a job for the Foreign Secretary? I should have thought that there was an argument for the Foreign Secretary keeping that engagement. It may be that on this occasion there were difficulties, but I am really asking about the policy on sending senior Ministers.
I want to deal with the one major issue that I have to raise, and that is where European policy is now made. Is it in the Foreign Office—I see the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) nodding—or is it in Downing street? One of the casualties of the Falklands war was the Foreign Office. It was right in terms of Britain's long-term interests, but it carried the can, and since 1982–83 it seems

to many of us that the policy that matters in relation to Europe, as in relation to so much else, has been made in Downing street.
Some of us have become more and more curious about the role of Mr. Charles Powell in the process of formulating European policy, because not since Sir Horace Wilson has there been anything quite like it. Before the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) gets excited about this, let me refer not to some Labour party magazine but to the Sunday Telegraph, which I think he will agree is not exactly the house magazine of the Labour party. Mr. Bruce Anderson, who would not consider himself to be some extreme Left-winger, said of Mr. Powell:
one of the ablest prime ministerial private secretaries of the century—and one of the most important … When the history of the past few years comes to be written, he will be seen as one of the three or four most influential figures at the heart of this administration … Total rapport … rebuffing contrary advice from the Foreign Office … It seems that he and not Sir Geoffrey is the Foreign Secretary … those with whom he is dealing abroad are asking themselves whether he is really speaking for HMG, and telling their embassies to find out what Charles Powell thinks.
If the Foreign Secretary and his Cabinet colleagues allow the Prime Minister to personalise Government to the extent that the right hon. Lady—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It is difficult to see what this has to do with the subject under debate.

Mr. Dalyell: It has a very great deal to do with it. It is at the heart of European formulation of policy.
I have to ask in what circumstances Mr. Powell has been unprecedently promoted in post. Never before has a private secretary been so—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not persuaded by what the hon. Gentleman has said that this has anything to do with the matter under discussion. We should return to the White Paper on the developments within the EEC. I cannot see how this is one of those developments covered by the White Paper.

Mr. Dalyell: Every hon. Member who has spoken has gone very wide indeed. I am saying that this matter is at the heart of the formulation of policy.
As I said yesterday, pre-1986, I did not name civil servants controversially. But Mr. Powell is not a shrinking violet.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot accept responsibility for the scope of the debate before I came into the Chair. I did not listen to it. I am responsible for the debate that is taking place now on the White Paper on developments in the EC, of which the House is asked to take note. If the hon. Gentleman can assure me that the matter that he is raising is covered by the White Paper, I might be persuaded to allow him to continue his speech on those lines. Otherwise, he should change tack.

Mr. Dalyell: The press have stated that Mr. Powell, in certain circumstances, has asked for the ambassadorships in Paris or Washington. Appointments to key embassies are matters of important European policy to Britain.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to see how diplomatic appointments can in any way arise under the document that the House is debating. The hon. Gentleman must find some new line of debate or resume his seat.

Mr. Dalyell: Are we not talking about political co-operation in Europe? I should have thought that appointments to embassies such as Paris or Rome were a matter of considerable importance because those are places in which policies—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not minimise the importance of the matter; it is its relevance that I call in question. It does not seem to be relevant to the debate.

Mr. Dalyell: What could be more relevant than the appointment of senior diplomats to the British embassy in Paris? Is not that central to the whole question of our performance in Europe?
We have to go back to January 1986. Mr. Powell did his job immaculately. He did tell the Prime Minister everything.

Mr. Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I come to your assistance and perhaps, inter alia, the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) by drawing to your attention pages 28 and 29 of the report entitled "European Political Co-operation"? European political co-operation is a Eurospeak term for the co-ordination of foreign policy. You will see that all the items in paragraphs 11 to 11.15 are concerned with foreign policy issues, and the British diplomatic service is an integral part of the process. My hon. Friend is mentioning a member of the diplomatic service, who fits neatly into that pattern of negotiation. The drift of Government policy, with which we agree, is towards the closer integration of foreign policy. I should have thought that my hon. Friend's references would fit into what is a wide remit of a report that covers practically everything that happened in the Community in six months.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's offer of help is rather like being struck on the head with a lifebelt. However, in the light of what he has said, I shall follow carefully what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) says.

Mr. Dalyell: I am grateful for lifebelts on the head or any other part of the anatomy at the moment. The Guardian of Friday 20 May said:
Powell has another string to his bow: he knows where the bodies are buried in the Westland affair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying it on. I am sure that he knows that he is testing my patience. We are not going to go down that road when we are debating the White Paper on developments within the EC. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to continue with that line of debate.

Mr. Dalyell: It is testing the patience of many of us to think that knowledge of where the bodies were buried in the Westland affair can be a qualification for being ambassador in Paris.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to do his exhumation on some other occasion.

Mr. Dalyell: This matter came up during business questions. In order to save time I referred to early-day motion 1142. I dropped the Leader of the House a note asking for exactly what he said, and, most courteously, produced a document headed, "Line to take". It said:
I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would by now have realised he ought not to believe everything he reads in the newspapers—even the Guardian. I am afraid his own

lively imagination, alongside the speculation and gossip some newspapers contain, makes for a very unreliable recipe indeed. Facts may make for a more boring diet, but it is one I none the less recommend to the hon. Gentleman.
It will be noticed that that was the line the Leader of the House was advised to take, but was not an honest rebuttal of the facts as set out in the early-day motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing a line of debate which is not relevant to the document before the House. Unless the hon. Gentleman addresses himself more directly to the subject of the debate, I shall ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Dalyell: This subject surely centres on a civil servant's capacity to obtain the ambassadorship of a country, such as Paris. I ask a very direct question of a Foreign Office Minister. Did Mr. Powell, or did he riot, turn down the offer of the ambassadorship in Stockholm? What other interpretation can be placed on the words
Powell has another string to his bow: he knows where the bodies are buried in the Westland affair"?
Clearly, the implication is that knowledge of wrongdoing by the Prime Minister places Mr. Powell in the position of being able to demand the ambassadorship of the Paris embassy or at a pinch, I am told, that of Rome, and to turn down the ambassadorship at Stockholm. Will the Government ask The Guardian to make any kind of withdrawal?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has totally disregarded my advice. I must for the last time say to him that if he persists in pursuing that line, I shall have no option but to insist that he resumes his seat.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not wish in any way to be discourteous to the Chair. Nor do I want to take up the time of other hon. Members who wish to speak. I say only that this is a serious issue. The arguments were set out at column 851 of Hansard for 25 July 1986, at column 386 of Hansard for 29 October 1981, and in the Adjournement debate on 22 April this year. The press has clearly implied that the Prime Minister, in saving her own political skin over the Westland affair—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman clearly intends to have no regard to my ruling. I call Sir Anthony Meyer.

Sir Anthony Meyer: This debate will have been worth while if only for the contributions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who have made the best speeches so far on this subject. After what has just taken place, I am a little shamefaced to say that I will cover some of the ground covered by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—although, I hasten to add, without making any incursion into the realm of personalities. However, I intend later to deal with the relative responsibilities of the Foreign Office and 10 Downing street in relation to our European policies.
At the outset of this debate, I entertained some hopes that the much proclaimed new realism of the Labour party on European matters would have enabled the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) to come out in his true colours as the convinced European we all know him to be, instead of the "Mr. Facing Both Ways" which he


was obliged so unconvincingly to impersonate today. By his intervention in Prime Minister's questions today, his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition blew the gaff and made perfectly plain the fact that when it comes to the crunch, he and his party are still the protectionist Little Englanders that they have always been.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: Do not be so silly.

Sir Anthony Meyer: That was clearly the implication of what was said by the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister's Question Time today, on the issue of the Rowntree takeover.
Hon. Members know perfectly well where I stand. I support the decisions taken by Governments of both parties to join the European Community and to make British membership the principal instrument of protecting British interests and of increasing British influence. Unlike some hon. Members on both sides of the house, I am also prepared to will the means to achieve that end. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, perhaps, I hold the view that if we want to achieve a true single market by 1992, with the great benefits it can bring, we must move some way towards an approximation of indirect taxes throughout the Community. I would not go so far as proposing identical rates on every item, but the more glaring differences will have to be eased.
Ministers keep telling me that such is quite unnecessary and that an effective single market can be perfectly well achieved with widely differing levels of indirect tax. They point to the United States, which is undoubtedly a single market, where different states have different levels of sales tax—although there are nowhere near the same discrepancies in the United States that there are within the European Community; only the kind of difference which would be left after a sensible move towards approximation in Europe.
The Government's argument is more dishonest than that. It has been overlooked that in defending the poll tax, the Government argue that it would be totally impracticable to finance local government in this country by way of a local sales tax, as different levels would produce unacceptable distortions of shopping patterns. The Government have that all wrong. They cannot have it both ways, when the two concepts they try to defend are so blatantly mutually incompatible. As regards Europe, the idea that there can be a common market despite huge differences in the levels of sales tax is totally dominant in ministerial circles.
The debate on 11 May on the issue of tax harmonisation turned out to be a contest between the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), whose speech had the great virtue of total inaudibility. It was a contest as to which of the two could sound more unenthusiastic about the European Community. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend won that particular contest hands down when he said:
We simply do not think it is necessary for the completion of the internal market that tax rates be approximated. Moreover, we have a major difficulty with the Commission's proposals for zero rates. As drafted, the proposal makes no provision for zero rates, although the Commission has hinted at temporary derogations for member states with particular difficulties.

We have made specific pledges to the electorate to retain zero rating on food, fuel and power, and children's clothing. I can assure the House that we neither wish nor intend to resile from those pledges. So I would have been happy to accept the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken)"—
and for once it was not in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)—
and our hon. Friends."—[Official Report, 11 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 411–12.]
The latter presumably included my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East.
In other words, election pledges are paramount, if I may coin a phrase, whatever damage may thereby be done to our other national objectives, and some Ministers seem positively eager to give encouraging signals to the cabal of malcontents who remain muttering in their caves about the unwisdom of ever having committed Britain to joining the European Community.
But there is a bigger issue than tax harmonisation: one on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford spoke in his penetrating speech, and to which The Economist draws attention this week. That issue is whether Britain, one of the great financial centres of the world, will be able to hang on to and develop that status—which, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reminded us at Prime Minister's Question Time today, is worth more than North sea oil in revenues.
As The Economist puts it, Britain as a member of the EC, would be
able to ensure that much of the matching of savings and investment would take place through London".
According to The Economist,
That claim becomes less plausible the longer sterling stays outside the European Monetary System. To international moneymen, the British debate over the EMS grows quainter by the day … The one remaining obstacle to full EMS membership for sterling is Mrs. Thatcher's own hostility to the idea.
I am a great admirer of both my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I am delighted that they are now beginning to stand up for themselves. It has been sad over past years to see that once great, once proud Department, the Foreign Office, cowering in a corner like a whipped child after being put in the doghouse through its failure to oblige the House to face up to realities over the Falklands.
I sometimes like to describe my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary as being engaged in a game of grandmother's steps with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He can move, provided that he is not seen to be doing so; if she turns and sees him moving, he must go back to square one. I should like to see my right hon. and learned Friend take his courage in both hands and keep moving—as quietly, modestly and unprovocatively as possible, but none the less moving steadily—in the direction in which he knows that he must go, the direction of extending our influence and strengthening our interests throughout the world. I very much hope that he is able to do so.

Mr. John Marshall: First, let me welcome the further impetus applied during the Danish presidency to the creation of the internal market. I must disagree, perhaps not for the first time this evening, with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for


Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who said that 1992 was about harmonisation. As a long-standing and experienced battler in European Community matters, he should know full well that what 1992 is about is the removal of artificial trade barriers to produce a genuine Community. Harmonisation was introduced to deal with the noise of lawnmowers, for instance, not because some bureaucrat somewhere had the foolish notion that lawnmower noise was something about which he felt particularly strongly, but so that there could be genuine competition between lawnmower manufacturers in the United Kingdom and their competitors in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Sir Anthony Meyer: My own lawnmower, British-made, is so insufferably noisy that I am quite unable to use it before lunchtime. It seems to me a jolly good thing that there should be some rules about keeping lawnmowers a bit quieter.

Mr. Marshall: I am glad that the environment of my hon. Friend's constituency is being improved as a result of the draft directive. But I was really trying to say that, apart from improving the environment of his garden, the measure will make competition much more real between manufacturers within the Community, and the United Kingdom is bound to benefit from that increased competition.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: It is to build up protectionism.

Mr. Marshall: No. My hon. Friend has got it wrong again. It is not to build up protectionism at all; it is to get rid of protectionism. It is to allow competition to take place. It is time that my hon. Friend got his speeches out of the groove in which they have been since 1971, or perhaps 1975. I sometimes think that he is like my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who would like to believe that the world ended in 1975. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East would like to think that the 1975 referendum had not taken place. He should recognise that Britain is in the European Community for good, and for the good of our country. The niggles that we hear from him whenever we debate the European Community do his constituency and his good sense no good at all.
I remember the days when my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East was "Secretary of State for Scotland" in the Glasgow parliamentary debating association. He used to make first-rate speeches then: those were the days before he discovered the European Community. Since he has become obsessed with the Community and with niggling about it, I am afraid that the standard of his speeches has declined somewhat. I wish that he could concentrate on another theme. I think that that would be of benefit to the House, the European Community and perhaps my hon. Friend's career as well.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I apologise for the character of my speeches. But does my hon. Friend—who, I know, studies these matters seriously—not accept that there is a great deal of protectionism in almost every measure coming out of the Commission in relation to 1992 and other matters? Will he consider in particular the proposals for foreign banks to come into the Community, which was simply a measure to protect the Common Market against outside intervention? Does he not accept that there is considerable evidence that the EEC is becoming a highly protectionist body?

Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend has got it wrong yet again. What 1992 is about is opening up the European market in financial services so that British and Scottish financial institutions can compete within the Community in a way that they cannot do today. That is not protectionist.
As for institutions outside the European Community, we must remember that certain countries such as Japan have not been exactly welcoming when it comes to European financial institutions seeking to join their market. Without going too far at this stage in the argument about reciprocity—about which we have heard a great deal in recent days—I feel that there is much to be said for saying to the Japanese and others, "If you will not give us certain rights, we will not give them to you."

Mr. Roger Knapman: If the Common Market is so much in favour of reciprocity, why did the Director General of Fair Trading say yesterday with regard to Rowntree that the extent to which Swiss companies are or are not vulnerable to similar bids from overseas was irrelevant?

Mr. Marshall: As my hon. Friend knows, there is currently no EC directive on merger policy. When I spoke last week to the European Commissioner for merger policy, Commissioner Sutherland, he made it clear that the reason he would not be interfering in the Rowntree bid was that he had no power to do so. But I was intending to deal with reciprocity later in my speech.
Having suffered a certain amount of injury time, let me pay tribute to the work that Lord Cockfield has done in respect of 1992.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Let me say en passant that perhaps as a result of that work his fate is assured.

Mr. Marshall: I am sure that my noble Friend will take that delphic comment in the way that it was intended. Whatever his fate may be, I am sure that when the history of the Delors commission is written, he will be seen as one of the giants of that commission and universally commended for the treat energy he has put into creating the impetus to make the internal market for the European Community. The drive, enthusiasm and vision of Lord Cockfield have made 1992 possible for the European Community.
I believe that Britain should welcome the abolition of trading barriers which will be brought about by 1992. Already 49 per cent. of our exports go to our partners in the European Community. The financial services sector, which will benefit greatly from 1992, is an industry from which we as a country do very well. Of course, 1992 will benefit not only the south-east of England; it will benefit other parts of the United Kingdom. The liberalisation of the financial services market should benefit the canny investors of Charlotte square in Edinburgh just as much as it will benefit those in the City of London.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, decisions about 1992 are already being made and it is wrong to assume that everything will happen on 31 December 1992. For a large number of markets, the decisions will have been made long before that. During the past six months, about 31 decisions were made by the Council. Of course there are bound to be some decisions which may be delayed somewhat beyond


31 December 1992. I consider that one of the Commission's mistakes during the past six months was to produce proposals for tax harmonisation. Those were stillborn and they must now be regarded as being as dead as the proverbial dodo. The Commission was putting economic theory before political practicality.
If we consider some of the proposals, the Commission said that petrol prices in Italy should fall by 29 per cent., and in Luxembourg they should go up by 32 per cent. The price of popular cigarettes should go up by 120 per cent. in Spain and fall by 44 per cent. in Denmark. It suggested that spirits should increase in price by 145 per cent. in Greece and drop by 50 per cent. in Denmark. In Ireland, the price of wine would decrease by 64 per cent., but the price of beer should decrease by 18 per cent. in France and 12 per cent. in Germany.
Do we really expect that the income tax payers of Ireland and Denmark would be amused at the prospect of higher income taxes and that they would then indulge in a toast to European unity as a result of those proposals? Do we really think that the drinkers in the German bier kellers will drink a toast to European unity if they are asked to pay 12 per cent. more for their litres of beer? Do we really think that smokers in Greece will relish the prospect of a near tripling in cigarette prices and then dream of Athens' contribution to European civilisation? Do we really think that the motorists of Germany would become more European if their petrol prices were to go up by 19 per cent. when the petrol price in Denmark went down by 19 per cent.? Of course, it is a political mirage. The sooner the European Commission clears up those proposals the better, as they will waste a lot of time and energy being debated and there is no likelihood of them coming to pass. The proposals do not just affect the United Kingdom. They have an adverse effect upon every country in the European Community.
Apart from the impact of taxes on cigarettes, wines and spirits and petrol, the proposals for VAT are socially regressive. In the United Kingdom, people with incomes of less than £60 a week spend 43 per cent. of that income on products that are currently zero-rated, while individuals with a weekly income of £325 to £450 spend only 22 per cent. of that income on zero-rated products. In the face of such widespread opposition, for the Commission to maintain those proposals is an exercise in pig-headed stupidity and wilful obstinacy. There is no prospect that they will be adopted, and energy is being dissipated in discussing them which could be used to much better effect elsewhere. The sooner the proposals are torn up the better. The tragedy of the European Community is that the Delors commission will not tear them up. It will take a new commission and new commissioners to remove those proposals.
The European Community has a population greater than that of the United States or Japan. It has a gross national product greater than that of the United States or Japan. We are a much more important trading block than either Japan or the United States. We are just as inventive as the Japanese or the Americans. Indeed, with all our assets, the Americans and the Japanese should be afraid of us, the European Community. Why are we so often afraid of the Japanese and the Americans? The reason is very simple. We have not taken full advantage of the potential

of a home market of 320 million people. We have failed to create that full potential and 1992 provides us with the last chance to seize that opportunity before it is snatched away from us.
I congratulate the Government on the success of their campaign to educate the public and industry about the potential of 1992. Last year, during the period of the Danish presidency, covered by the report, there was a great deal of concern in the United Kingdom that France and Germany were well aware of what 1992 meant. Most people in the United Kingdom realise that 1992 will be a special year. It will be the year in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be re-elected for the third time. Of course, 1992 has a much greater significance than that historic event. It will create for industry in the United Kingdom an opportunity that it has never had before.
If industry is to prepare for 1992, it is essential that merger policies in the United Kingdom should take account of the potential of 1992. It is essential that when we consider mergers in the United Kingdom, we should recognise that from 1992 the market will be a European market and not a national market. Some 18 months ago, a merger between Tate and Lyle and British Sugar was vetoed, despite the fact that they would have been subject to competition from the European Community and prices would have been kept down because of that competition. More recently, a possible merger between Rowntree and Cadbury was frustrated because they would have had a large percentage of the United Kingdom confectionery market, although they would not have had an excessive percentage of the European market.
No doubt 1992 will result in a series of transnational mergers. If the United Kingdom is to be the only liberal capital market of the major markets in Europe, it is inevitable that British companies will be the main victims of that phenomenon. In our main competitors within the European Community, Germany, France and Italy, it is most unlikely that a hostile bid from a British company would succeed. Indeed, as Pearson discovered, it is almost impossible to carry out a friendly merger in France. If we are to remain the only open market, we shall be the country where the transnational mergers will take place and there must be a risk that we shall become a branch factory economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) referred to reciprocity, to Rowntree and Switzerland. I listened with interest to what was said yesterday about the subject but I feel that some of the comments distorted the philosophy of British industry and were perhaps kinder to the philosophy of Swiss industry than they should have been. We were told yesterday that in the United Kingdom some companies have strange voting structures. What we should have been told is that very few British companies have voting structures and that if any company were to go to the stock exchange today and say that it wanted a public float with a series of non-voting shares, the stock exchange would tell it, not very politely, to get knotted.
In Switzerland the ethos is quite different. A company's articles of association make it possible for it to frustrate hostile mergers. The only example we were given yesterday of a British company buying a Swiss company involved Cartier. I would not describe Cartier as a British company because 53 per cent. are bearer shares and no one knows who owns them. It was able to bid for the Swiss company only because the company went to it and said, "Please bid


for us." I challenge my right hon. Friend the Minister to produce one example of a hostile bid in Switzerland by a British company that has succeeded.
If the argument about reciprocity does not apply to bids from Switzerland, I can only suggest that the paragraph about reciprocity in the White Paper on merger policy was put in to deal with bids from the Moscow Norodny hank.
There is a bid for Rowntree because it made a success of the preparations for 1992. It has been in Europe since—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to see how this arises from the White Paper.

Mr. Marshall: One of the questions that relates to 1992 is that of merger policy. The White Paper refers to the progress being made in the developments towards 1992.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With respect, the hon. Gentleman seems to be about to embark on a detailed discussion of Rowntree. That will not take place in 1992, but this year, 1988.

Mr. Marshall: I was going to deal with the matter only en passant. I was going to ask four questions of my right hon. Friend the Minister relating to merger policy. Perhaps we can deal with them in a debate after the Whitsun recess. Merger policy has to be looked at closely in respect of 1992 because there are deep implications for the future of British industry.
I have listened with interest to the various comments made about the European monetary system. I am always suspicious of economic panaceas because over the past 20 or 30 years I have found that most of the economic panaceas put forward have turned out to be unsuccessful. Rarely have the anticipated results flown from the proposals put forward. Since 1979 I have, as a Member of the European Parliament, listened to a number of my colleagues advocate British membership of the exchange rate mechanism and the European monetary system. Whatever the exchange rate has been, I have been told that the parity was right. Whether sterling has been high or low, I have been told that it is a good time to join. I get suspicious of people who tell me that whatever the rate, it is the right rate and that at long last we have reached a rate at which we can make the fateful leap.
The arguments for British membership of the exchange rate mechanism are, to say the least, thin. Those who argue that Britain should join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS have to answer some questions. Why is it that Britain, which has not been a member of the exchange rate mechanism, has had a more successful economic record than many of the countries that are members of the exchange rate mechanism? Why is it that productivity has been growing more rapidly in the United Kingdom that in those countries that are subject to the exchange rate mechanism? Why has the growth in jobs been higher in the United Kingdom than in countries that are members of the EMS? Why has our ecomomy done so much better than those countries that are subject to the exchange rate mechanism? Could it be that membership of the exchange rate mechanism is not the panacea that some of my hon. Friends suggest?
I was interested in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. He said that there might well be frequent realignments, if we were to join the exchange mechanism but that somehow there would not be a

political storm about them. Some of us are sufficiently long in the tooth to remember what happened in 1967 when there was a realignment of the sterling-dollar rate. I do riot think that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson would say that there was no political storm or political fall-out from that. The lesson of history is that when there is a realignment as the result of a summit of Finance Ministers, there is frequently a political storm when the Minister comes back. How would a Minister, perhaps from the current Opposition, care to come back and say that there had been a devaluation of the pound relative to the deutsch mark of 15 per cent.? If people believe that that would not create a political storm, they are being unduly naive.
One of the consequences of realignment is that there would be significant benefits for the speculators because they can always read when a realignment is likely to take place and they would make millions of pounds of deutschmarks out of it.
The Copenhagen summit will be seen as a further milestone on the road to sanity within the European Community. We must realise that the Prime Minister is very much the saviour of Europe because the only reason why controls were put on milk output within the European Community was the determination of the Prime Minister to secure them. The only reason why there has been agreement on stabilisers is, again, the determination of the Prime Minister. The only reason why over the next few years there will be a reduction in the percentage of the European budget being spent on the common agricultural policy is the determination of the Prime Minister to secure that reduction.
The only reason why The Grocer magazine was able to report—[Interruption.] I am afraid that it was not published by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. Perhaps it would have been interesting if it had been. The only reason why The Grocer magazine was able to say 10 days ago that there was no longer any skimmed milk powder in intervention in the United Kingdom is the determination of the Prime Minister to take Europe out of the thicket of subsidies and surpluses. It is a great privilege that she is our leader and that she has secured changes in Europe that are essential to bring sanity to the CAP.
The changes my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has secured in the CAP will lead to a more cost-effective European budget. Money that has been spent on the CAP could not be spent on the regional and social funds or on research. Surely it must be better to spend money on cancer research than on funding the growth of tobacco. That is the sort of line along which the United Kingdom is moving. We are trying to reduce substantially the percentage of the European budget going to agriculture.
The debates on the European Community in this House are too often characterised by a sense of defeatism. The speeches of my right hon. Friends are cast too often in a groove of gloom and doom. Some hon. Members want to re-fight the battle of Culloden Moor—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Battle of Bannockburn."] There are even one or two hon. Members who would like to fight the battle of 1066 once again. Their negative attitude to the potential from the European Community does them and the House no good. We must recognise that the European Community provides many jobs for this country. It is the source of our influence in the world. Europe is the cradle of our defence. We should take advantage of the opportunities and


recognise them and stop being sniggering and negative as some hon. Members are towards the European Community.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I shall speak briefly on the recent joint applications from Cleveland and Durham county councils to the European Commission for an integrated development operations programme. It is a small bid for just £210 million towards a programme of £430 million.
The eligibility of Durham and Cleveland counties for support from Europe is a recognition of the relatively low level of per capita income in the northern region. That is a direct result of the demise of the industrial base, due to the policies pursued by the Government.
The application by the two counties requests funding out of the European Commission structural fund. The money will be used to support programmes such as business advice services, land reclamation, and improved communications and transport, and to improve the physical environment, as well as develop tourism and provide training. The structural funds of the European Community, especially the regional and social funds, are important sources of support to the north. Their significance increases as the Government withdraw their regional support.
There are several concerns over the future of the structural funds and access to their benefits by less-favoured regions of the United Kingdom.
First, the Government's desire to minimise and change the basis of statistics will increasingly deny regions of the United Kingdom the right to participate in European programmes. A recent example is the Government's failure to provide regional data on research and development, which has led to most English regions being denied access to an EC initiative because only the United Kingdom aggregate figures were used.
Our second concern is the shift in emphasis towards co-ordinated and infrastructure programmes. We welcome these as a genuine attempt to examine and redress the underlying reasons for regional disparities, but they must be viewed against the Government's desire to weaken the role of local government, and to reduce the planning function and spending on local economic development by local authorities.
Those policies of the Government will limit the ability of certain regions of the United Kingdom to participate in the integrated development programme. I refer particularly today to the northern region.
In short, the EC is making progress in devising schemes for regional development, although there is some concern within the Opposition that there may be a bias towards the Mediterranean regions in their distribution.
The Opposition want to see our Government help and not hinder attempts at securing better funding for regional development initiatives. We want to see the Government supporting positive initiatives from Europe that will help to provide a long-term solution to the regional imbalances from which we are suffering.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I sense that the mood of the House favours brief contributions, so as I am a new boy among the hardened experts on European affairs I hope that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) will forgive me if I do not comment on her speech other than to say that it was rather constructive.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Constructive!

Mr. Boswell: I am pleased to hear that one other hon. Member is listening to the debate. But I should like to deal with agriculture, if I may, and other related points including some that I have stored up for a long time.

Mr. Devlin: I sought to take issue on one point. The hon. Lady's speech was far from constructive when one considers the vast amount of regional aid.

Ms. Mowlam: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As an hon. Member who is new to the House, I am unaware of the full rules of the House. Could you therefore advise me on the fact that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) never interrupts hon. Members when they are speaking, so that they can respond and defend themselves, but interrupts by the devious method that we have just seen. When that happens how can we have a proper debate? That is a back-door complaint.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is in order for an hon. Member who has the Floor to allow another hon. Member to intervene in his speech, so long as the intervention is relevant and brief. I understood that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) had given way to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin).

Mr. Devlin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All that I sought to say was that the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) that the hon. Lady had made a constructive speech was wholly misconceived in the light of the Government's commitment to the northern region, and the notable successes that we are achieving there through means such as the urban development corporation recently installed on Teesside.

Mr. Boswell: As ever, I am honoured to accept a reproof by my hon. Friend. Perhaps I may help if I carry on to the next remark that I was going to make. I am in the business of sharing compliments with the Labour party wherever possible. I commend the party very much for its new attitude to Europe. It resembles nothing more closely than an exchange between the writer Thomas Carlyle and an anonymous lady. She said to him "Sir, I accept the universe." He replied: "Madam, you had better."
Moving on to the workings of the European Council, a myth and misconception is encouraged by the visionaries, and the anti-visionaries, of whom we have heard today. There is a feeling that however good, notable and lapidary is a settlement, it somehow sets a pattern indefinitely for the rest of the European Community. Europe does not work like that. The Council moves from one point of disagreement towards the next. The Minister of State might accept that the best one can expect and perhaps claim of Council meetings is that that remarkable and deliberative body will move at a deliberate pace. A camel train will pitch its caravan at an oasis for the night, and one can only hope to set its direction again in the morning.
Some constructive points have been made about agriculture, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) with regard to the settlement on stabilisers. We have the basic building blocks of agricultural control. The stabilisers are being put in place commodity by commodity. There is an overall financial ceiling, but there are some difficulties in starting it up because of the weight of the past. That was explored by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). For example, the inherited stocks and the cost of disposing of them must be considered. We have the machinery whereby we can control what has previously been uncontrollable. Whether we do so depends on our being eternally vigilant.
Many of us remember mechanisms such as the guarantee threshold for cereals. They have come and gone. Now we have the opportunity to carry out the job. It is fair to record that, for milk products, for example, where annual expenditure was rising by about £1 billion a year, since 1984, with the imposition of quotas which were the precursors of stabilisers, expenditure in the Community has stabilised and tended to drop somewhat.
Of the current agricultural topics, clearly the topic of the green currencies looms large. I shall not make a long, partisan speech on behalf of British farmers. I recall that there is a disparity within the green currencies averaging perhaps 10 per cent. and in a band between 5 and 12 per cent. I feel that this must be addressed, sooner rather than later. There is a problem of cost for the Community, as we all know—a small one for the United Kingdom, but a much larger one if there is a French devaluation. But the issue will not go away; it must be addressed by 1992 and it is better to make an early start on it if we can. Others have been making the same point about the European monetary system.
On the general economic issue of 1992, I feel that the Minister of State, in opening the debate, spoke extremely clearly. I read with interest the comments of our noble Friend Lord Young in the other place yesterday on the implications for competition policy of that change. He indicated, in a somewhat oblique way, I thought, that the judgment on what is or is not a competitive position will have to move to the wider format of the enlarged market. I feel that we need to hammer out as a national Government with other member states and with the Commission a more definite blueprint for competition policy and the agreed transition thereto rather quickly.
I feel passionately that 1992 is much more than a simple matter of economics; it is an important political and psychological development. I wish to make two points on it. The first is from a position of no interest, unlike many other hon. Members who have spoken. It is important that we in this place stop treating our colleagues in the European Parliament purely as strangers and perhaps treat them a little more as brothers and sisters, if I may put it that way. Secondly, I stress the importance of education for 1992, and my right hon. Friend need make no apology for the campaign that is being launched now successfully by the Government.
I was delighted when my 17-year-old daughter, without the least prompting from me or anybody else, announced at her school that she wished to conduct a project on 1992. She derived a wealth of useful information from the packs available from the Department for Enterprise and is now writing her project. At the same time, to put a barb into this, I was a little concerned that the school seemed to be

surprised that she thought that that was an interesting subject to explore. We need to take this right from youth upwards and make much more of it.
More important still, we need to recognise that we do not go into Europe simply as Britons to conduct tribal wars or cutting-out expeditions. We go there to establish a degree of mutual understanding and to find mutual interests. If we find that Ruhr steel workers are unemployed or that small farmers in the Auvergne arc facing problems, they are our problems just as much as problems of the other member states. I have derived great benefit and satisfaction from the European contacts I have made. We cannot see this as a zero sum exercise.
Again, it is not a purely European exercise. The United Kingdom is not just an offshore island and Europe cannot afford to be simply an offshore continent, devoid of wider responsibilities to both the developed and the developing worlds. The damage with the common agricultural policy as it is operating has been not so much its internal waste of resources, on which we could argue at length and which we could quantify, as its wider repercussions on the pattern of world trade. There I agree, although I do not always agree, with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).
The new concept developed in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of producer subsidy equivalent provides us with a very powerful analytical tool for working out the relative scale of agricultural protection in various states throughout the world. It may not be suitable, as Sir Michael Franklin, who was mentioned at the beginning of the debate, has suggested, to use it as the operational mechanism for enforcing cuts in tariffs and protection under the OECD and the GATT round, but it is a very useful starting point.
I believe that, as Europeans, we should take GATT very seriously now. Just as we are now beginning to find political detente with the east in relation to political and military matters, so with the west and the other developed and developing countries of the free world we should be looking for a measure of trade detente. I believe that that will be a very important theme beginning from this year and going through the negotiations and into 1992. We want open discussion of multilateral agricultural disarmament, fully and freely negotiated, balanced and to mutual benefit. We shall not be able to take it all the way, any more than, in my view, we can with nuclear weapons, but we must take it an important stage down the road.

Mr. George Foulkes: The oft-used phrase in replies from both sides of the House that we have had a very wide-ranging debate could not be more true than of tonight's debate. I shall not attempt to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in his quest for millet seed or the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) in his quest for budgie seed and apples—not that they are not important—but will concentrate on some of the even more important issues that have been raised.
I was disappointed by the Minister's introduction; it was not as constructive as I had hoped and expected. It was lacking in the vision that I had hoped for. Although the right hon. Lady is a Foreign Office Minister—indeed, deputy Foreign Secretary—she hardly touched on external


relations, trade and aid or European political co-operation, which together take up nearly a quarter of the White Paper. I thought that they might form the centrepiece of the contribution by the deputy Foreign Secretary. I shall touch on a few of these topics later, which I hope will give the right hon. Lady a chance to make amends in her reply.
I shall deal first with one or two of the main issues raised in the debate, excluding the budget, which we dealt with at great length last week and which my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) covered. He mentioned the speech of Mr. David Williamson, as did a number of other hon. Members. It was a very revealing and interesting speech. I have read that gentleman's curriculum vitae. He is a very impressive man, a Companion of the Bath and a former Under-Secretary in the Cabinet Office with special responsibility for the European Community. According to the Tuesday 24 May issue of that oft-quoted newspaper the Financial Times, Mr. Willliamson accused the United Kingdom of
taking too narrow a view of EC plans to create a single market by 1992",
and said:
In the UK, there is rather a heavy concentration on the internal market as a cash register operation.
Looking at Conservative Members talking about the prospects of the internal market—we even had the hon. Member for Southend, East telling us about his pecuniary interests—we often imagine that we see little pound signs lighting up in the pupils of their eyes, like little cash register symbols, at the prospect of the kind of money that they are going to make in the years after 1992.
The Department of Trade's version of a business man's Europe contrasts markedly with the version from across the Channel. To their credit, those across the Channel stress the advantages to consumers, workers and the environment. The advantages were best expressed in a speech by the president of the Commission, Jacques Delors, in Stockholm on 12 May. I am afraid that the text of his speech is in French, but I shall do my best to use parts of it.
Jacques Delors said that Europe is advancing towards six linked objectives. One is completion of the internal market, but the others, which are equally important, are often forgotten by Conservative Members, although not by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). We did not have the opportunity to hear too much of his wisdom tonight.
The first of the other objectives is strengthening economic and social cohesion, including the social dimension of the Community. Hon. Members may recall that when we were discussing entry into the Common Market—I freely supported entry—one of the reasons why Labour Members, and some Conservative Members, supported it was because of that social cohesion and the social dimension.
Pensions in the Community range from a maximum of £125 per week to a minimum of £41·15p per week. Where in that range does the pensioner in the United Kingdom fall? Of course, we know that it is at the bottom of the pile.

Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the important difference is that in the United Kingdom occupational pensions are paid in addition to the basic state retirement pension? Under the European caisse

system there is often a single pension. The disparity in the income of pensioners—certainly for those retiring over the past few years—has become much less.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is admitting that there is a disparity. He is contesting the figures produced by the Community, but, as he knows, many pensioners in the United Kingdom rely completely on the state pension.

Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that in a number of Community countries, ladies are not eligible for pension at 60, and that the percentage of the national income given to pensioners is higher in the United Kingdom than in almost any other Community country?

Mr. Foulkes: That does not refute the point that I was making, which was that because the majority of pensioners must rely on state pensions they are substantially worse off. I should like to see the retirement age for men and women harmonised in the United Kingdom.
The second of the important objectives advanced by Jacques Delors is joint co-operation on research. The third is monetary co-operation. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) mentioned the possibility of Britain joining the exchange rate mechanism. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) put a different complexion on the matter. When the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are asked about British membership of the exchange rate mechanism, the answer is always carefully rehearsed so that, for once, they give the same reply. They say that we shall join when the time is right.
As we are getting towards the recess, perhaps the Minister will be a little brave—she has been on other issues—and say what the criteria are for deciding when the time is right. I am asking her not to say when the time will be, but to give a hint of what the criteria are so that Labour Members can make judgments about when the time is likely to be right.
A further objective mentioned by Jacques Delors was that greater account should be taken of environmental matters. The Minister claimed some credit on environmental issues, which astonished me. Will she explain why on 22 separate occasions legal action has been taken against the United Kingdom for violating European environmental laws? Will she explain why Blackpool and Southport beaches are among the worst in Europe? Will she explain why there continue to be dangerous levels of lead in drinking water in Scotland, especially in Ayr, which is where I stay? It is reliably stated that intelligence levels decrease as the level of lead in water increases, so those who live in Ayr clearly have some personal concern.
Jacques Delors stressed the importance of accompanying policies for the internal market, and said that they are indispensable to the economic and social cohesion of the Community. He mentioned the development of backward regions. I pay tribute to the excellent, eloquent and intelligent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam). She revealed that the United Kingdom has abandoned regional policy. As a result, we are losing aid from the European Community—money that it must give for vital projects in regions of the country is being lost. Those indispensable accompanying policies, as Jacques Delors described them, are being undermined by the United Kingdom.
Jacques Delors mentioned the struggle against long-term unemployment. Conservative Members claim


some credit for the decline in unemployment. My hon. Friend the member for Hamilton exposed some aspects of those claims. Let us never forget the cosmetic action that the Government have taken to cover up the real level of unemployment.
A further indispensable policy mentioned by Jacques Delors is professional instruction for young people—real professional instruction, not the schemes dreamed up by the Government, which have caused so much resentment among our young people. France has 41,000 young people in training for electrical craft and technical skills. In comparison, we have only 15,000 young people in training.

Mrs. Chalker: That is all we need.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister should ask employers in the south-east of England about the difficulties they have in obtaining skilled employees. Her colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment will tell her about the difficulties involved. The Government are not making the sort of response that Jacques Delors is crying out for.
Another indispensable objective mentioned by Jacques Delors is the development of rural areas. As an hon. Member representing a large rural area, I confirm that deregulation, privatisation and the free-enterprise society have resulted in a reduction in services and jobs and in depopulation. Jacques Delors supported the Belgian idea of a pedestal of guaranteed social rights. How can the Government say that we are moving towards those guarantees of social rights when they have made cuts in housing benefit and social security over the past few months?
All Delors's objectives are entirely consistent with the Labour party's policy, which was agreed yesterday at the national executive committee meeting. That is the authorised version of the policy. The Minister mentioned the document produced by Labour MEPs entitled "Bringing Common Sense to the Common Market". That document made a useful contribution to the discussions. I shall not go into details, but if there are any questions, I can certainly answer them. Our policy is entirely consistent with the vision of the European Community put forward by Jacques Delors.
The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) always makes a good contribution to these debates, and I hope that that praise does him no harm because I mean him no harm—[Interruption.] It may be the kiss of death. The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton mentioned the need for greater accountability of the European Community both here and in Brussels and Strasbourg. We believe that the European Commission should be made more accountable. The Single European Act enlarged it without setting out new safeguards of accountability. My hon. Friend Lord Bruce sometimes gives the Labour party little credit for the way that we opposed the Single European Act. Sometimes, some ironic remarks by Labour Members are taken out of context, so, as one who likes irony as a method of contributing to debates, I must be careful in future. We strongly opposed the Single European Act, and some of our predictions are coming true.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To emphasise the hon. Gentleman's point, will he remind the House how many Labour

Members were here to vote against the Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which implemented parts of the Single European Act?

Mr. Foulkes: I remember speaking and voting a number of times against the Single European Act, but I remember also that the hon. Gentleman's actions were not as brave as his words when we came to the final consideration of that legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton called for consideration of ways in which the House can improve the scrutiny of the increasing volume of European legislation. What has happened to the convention of ministerial statements being made after meetings of the Council of Ministers? Only yesterday, according to the Financial Times, a couple of major issues were discussed. A summit talk on the middle east was urged by Ministers, including the Minister of State, and there were assurances about peripheral and sparsely populated areas. The Opposition would like statements to be made after such meetings so that we can challenge and question any statements to the press. As for the assurances about peripheral and sparsely populated areas, I hae ma doots, to use the veracular. We have not had the opportunity to express our doubts.
Political co-operation is the most important and underestimated part of the report and of the work of the European Community and the one with the greatest. potential. Has the Minister seen the conclusions of the Oxford conference on peace and development in Central America, which calls for concerted European action on human rights, help with the electoral process, support for the setting up of a Central American Parliament, help in alleviating Central America's problems—for example, debt—and aid and development assistance?
We welcome the programme of increased aid to central America which was agree after the Hamburg meeting. It is a pity that the Foreign Secretary did not attend the last couple of meetings. The European Community must become more involved in monitoring human rights in central America, encouraging implementation of the peace plan, assisting in setting up the central American Parliament—we can give some valuable practical advice—and pressing the Americans to stop their support for the Contra terrorists fighting against the elected Government of Nicaragua.
The European Community can use the combined power of 12 nations, with a knowledge and history of involvement in various regions, including Central America, as a power for good, separate from American policy, which is reeling under a series of humiliations. There are divisions among the Contra terrorists. The Americans have been humiliated by General Noriega, as we saw in today's newspapers. Other issues underline the importance of a vigorous separate European Community policy. I hope that the Minister, who winced a little at the thought, will see the great potential in the 12 countries of Europe working together as a new force for good in the world, separate from the foreign policy objectives of the United States and the Soviet Union.
The European Community needs to develop a co-ordinated policy on other foreign policy issues. On Chile, we need to develop a common approach to the plebiscite to ensure that there is free access to the media and to all parts of the electoral process for all opposition parties. We need to develop a common approach to freeing


political prisoners and ending the torture and other violations of human rights which continue, as confirmed by the recent Amnesty International reports.
I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) on South Africa. Unfortunately, the British Government have never been enthusiastic in their support for the European Community special programme to South Africa.

Mrs. Chalker: Nonsense.

Mr. Foulkes: I hope that the right hon. Lady will express her enthusiasm and that she will concede that the promotion of orderly internal politics legislation, currently being considered by the South African Parliament, will kill the European Community special programmes for the victims of apartheid. The Independent said that Britain should fight for the European Community fund. The Minister said, "Nonsense," when I said that the British Government do not support that approach. I hope that she will confirm that they will fight for the fund. I hope that the right hon. Lady agrees that, if the route offered by these positive measures is closed, the British Government must recognise that, to bring the South African Government to their senses, the only alternative is to impose sanctions.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has given a list of areas about which the Socialists are especially concerned. I was surprised that he did not mention areas about which European countries are concerned. They have ships in the middle east and four member states are especially involved in that area.

Mr. Foulkes: I was going to mention the middle east, but did not do so because of the lack of time. Through the Vienna treaty, the European Community has played a part in that area, but it could play a much greater part, for example, by encouraging the Israelis to accept the origin marking of goods produced in the Occupied Territories. There is scope to make positive progress. I accept that there are many areas—the middle east is a good example—where the European Community can make a positive contribution.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be a bit daft if the Common Market went round telling Israel to get involved in origin marking given that the Common Market forced us to abolish origin marking altogether through the Consumer Credit Act. Would not that be rather silly?

Mr. Foulkes: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that there might be some consistency on that issue and that it might be a good idea from his point of view as well as from the point of view of those in the occupied territories.
I know that the Minister of State will want to answer all the points that have been raised in the debate, I certainly hope that she will answer some of mine. I am afraid that the Government's attitude to the European Community is somewhat niggardly and mercenary, and there has been criticism from the Conservative Benches in that regard. Abroad, as at home, we see the worship of greed. There is a lack of vision, understanding and appreciation of the potential of Europe and of Europe's global role. Instead, the Government see an opportunity for business men—an

opportunity for the City slickers to make even more money. The Labour party is the party which is showing the visionary way forward, both within Europe and for Europe's place in the world.

Mrs. Chalker: I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) can have seen his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) enter the Chamber. I suspect that if he had, he would not have gone on as he did.
The debate has been predictable in some ways, although there have been some interesting contributions. Some right hon. and hon. Members have looked forward. I may not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) in every respect, but he seizes the future possibilities most positively. To hear the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley one would have thought that he had not listened to many of the contributions made tonight.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman has had a good whack. He originally said that he would speak for 10 or 15 minutes. He started at five past and stopped about half past, so he can wait patiently for a moment.

Mr. Foulkes: May I just make one correction?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We cannot have the Minister and the Opposition Front Bench spokesman on their feet at the same time. Mrs. Chalker.

Mrs. Chalker: If it makes the hon. Gentleman any happier, I shall give way to him briefly now, and that is his lot.

Mr. Foulkes: I concede that the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) made an excellent and positive contribution. I was saying that the Government were not positive. The right hon. Member for Guildford is one of the many ex-Cabinet Ministers who litter the Conservative Benches.

Mrs. Chalker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will not find any of us lacking in enthusiasm for making Europe as a whole work, which means far more than the single market. I shall come to that issue later on.
My hon. Friends the Members for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) made positive contributions to the debate. I am sorry that could not be in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) spoke, but I have had a very reliable note from the Paymaster General. I would not have expected my hon. Friend to address the House in a debate such as this in anything other than his normal fashion. It is good to feel that that, at least, has not changed, even if this debate is about change and the positive developments in the European Community illustrated in the White Paper covering the second six months of last year.
A number of anxieties were expressed. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) asked to be forgiven because he had to leave us on constituency business. He was concerned about farming. We recently had a considerable debate—one of five debates on the European Community this month—in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry


of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made some interesting and relevant remarks. I shall urge, through the columns of Hansard, that the hon. Gentleman re-read our debate of 5 May because it is appropriate to the present discussions.
No one would disagree that farmers have been at a potential disadvantage and would continue to be if the system of subsidy continued. The system of subsidy lifts the inefficient farmer to the level of the efficient and in doing so removes much of our competitive advantage. Competition is distorted. I agree with those hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who said that competition is distorted by the system of monetary compensatory amounts. That is the very reason why we support the proposal to phase them out by 1992. I believe that a start should be made this year—particularly in the pigmeat sector, where removing the present disadvantage to the United Kingdom would save money in the Community budget. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East would welcome that.
Our objective in farming must be to return agriculture to the market place and at the same time, through the guarantee fund and the guidance fund, to help farmers to adapt to the changed circumstances and take advantage of the new opportunities. Far more could be said on that score, but I shall not stray on to the territory of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
Budgie seed was bound to he a central point at the beginning of our debate, and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) could not resist raising the subject. The Government agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East that the present proposal, which is one of the Commission's price-fixing proposals, is a rotten one; it is a shocking idea and we are opposing it on the following grounds. First, the Commission has offered us no technical justification for such a change. Secondly, the cost of the change would be borne by the caged bird owners. That would place an extra burden on many elderly, infirm and disabled people and we do not wish that to happen. We shall fight the measure. I gather that there are many budgies in Flanders and in other parts of the Community and I am sure that the Community will not be prepared to accept this thoughtless proposal, which perhaps results from a link with the price of barley.
Enough of the budgie seed—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: rose—

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is trying to ask me whether it is a matter for qualified majority vote. It is, but I am confident that the budgie owners of Europe will rise together and defeat this ridiculous proposal. Now that some of the other worries of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East seem to be diminishing, perhaps he will concentrate his efforts on the budgies.
Let me deal with a more long-term problem that the House has discussed—the whole question of the scrutiny of European business. Every time that we have a debate or discussion, concern is expressed about scrutiny, and I for one would never seek to run away from that fact. I fully endorse the requirement for scrutiny, but the precise procedural form that any consideration of changes in our current scrutiny proposals might take must be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I know that the matter has been already discussed, and I shall draw hon. Members' remarks to the notice of my

right hon. Friend. The Government are already pledged to monitor the implications for scrutiny of the Single European Act, and we shall do that. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon that British Members of the European Parliament have an important role to play. However, I think that my hon. Friend would agree that they cannot replace the efforts of this House, nor should they. Instead, they can complement them.
In that regard, let me pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry at the end of the debate about the ridiculous attitude in the House to the presence of Members of the European Parliament in Westminster, and their involvement in the affairs of this country. Members of this House and Members of the European Parliament both have a role to play. Those roles can be complementary, and how much better it would be if our attitude were positive and that happened.

Mr. George Robertson: rose—

Mrs. Chalker: We must remember the time.

Mr. Robertson: The Minister does not have to worry about time. On this of all nights, we do not need to worry about time. One of the major problems about integrating Members of the European Parliament, who I agree could make a valuable contribution to the discussions and the monitoring of European Community business, is the pressure and space in this building. It is long overdue that we do something about the accommodation, so that hon. Members could at least have some of those facilities accorded to Members of the European Parliament in its two locations in Europe. We might then be able to offer them some hospitality and accommodation when they come here to help us.

Mrs. Chalker: I agree with the hon. Member. [Interruption.] I am delighted that the Lord President is endorsing my comments. However, it is not simply a need for space and equipment; there is a need for a change of attitude. That was the point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, although we have now taken the issue wider. We have a role to ensure that the scrutiny is as good as it can be. We are keeping it under review. We will look also at the methods used in other countries, because they may have ideas which could be applicable here. Just because they did not start necessarily in this country, that does not mean that the way other people do it would be bad for the scrutiny of Community legislation in this country.
During my absence from the Chamber, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East discussed his anxiety about the Miracle Bus. That is an anxiety that I share. My hon. Friend has been working for years to try and ensure that there was a bus service which went from his constituency to Frankfurt. Along with the Miracle Bus company, he has always said that there need to be fewer regulations. As I said earlier, that is the view of the Government. I know that there have been difficulties and delays, not from the Federal Government of Germany, but from the Laender governments in the areas through which the bus is to go.
I have contacted the chairman of the Miracle Bus company frequently, as have my officials. I shall stand


shoulder to shoulder with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East to ensure that the Miracle Bus does happen.

Mr. Robertson: On the bus with the budgie seed.

Mrs. Chalker: Yes, on the bus with the budgie seed.
We must not make fun of a serious and important debate. I believe that the freedom of transportation throughout the Community is something we have entered into far too slowly, not because of a lack of will on the part of this country, but because of a lack of ability for all nations to see the great prize that is there for the taking within Europe. Europe will become stronger if we can make our transport far better linked and far cheaper for the consumers of that transport, which is important.
The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) made an interesting contribution. He took us into the area which the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley referred to. I regard the development of European political co-operation as one of the most important developments in Europe. I did not say it at the beginning because I knew that—with the leave of the House—I would have to have something new and different to say at the end. As it happens, it has fitted in well with the comments of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.
If the hon. Gentleman and his party are as enthusiastic as he claimed them to be, I wonder why on earth the Labour party opposed the Single European Act, which put European political co-operation on a treaty basis for the first time. At the end of our 1986 presidency, it enabled us to set up a permanent secretariat to ensure that it worked. That is why it is now working so much better. European political co-operation really started to work when the Government held the presidency of the European Council.
I now come to the questions that were asked during the debate. With regard to European political co-operation, the hon. Member for Bradford, North made a genuine and continuing comment about South Africa. The House is already aware that we have regular exchanges of views among the Twelve on the developments in South Africa. The objectives of the Twelve are the complete dismantling of apartheid and its replacement with a genuinely representative non-racial system of government. We make our views known to the South African Government. As the twelve nations in European political co-operation, we are committed to working actively to promote the process of peaceful change.
The hon. Member for Bradford, North also spoke of the EC code of conduct. The importance that we attach to the code is now being shared by our partners in the Community. We continue to encourage companies to comply with its provisions, and there has been more compliance in recent years than there was two or three years ago. I will not comment on individual company reports, as the hon. Gentleman did, but I will say that there has been positive and helpful development in European political co-operation.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley covered many areas of the world. I think I would try the patience of the House if I went into all those areas of foreign policy. I am glad that the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is completely at

one with me, as so often happens. However, if there is a political issue on which the Twelve together have a genuine concern, we shall not hesitate to discuss it, whatever and wherever it may be. We will do all we can through political co-operation to bring greater peace to some of the troubled areas of the world.
I want to return to an issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley in his reply for the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman accused the Government of opposing improvement in environmental standards and poured cold water on some things that I had said briefly at the beginning of the debate. I will tell the hon. Gentleman one or two things that have happened in this area.

Mr. Foulkes: What about the beaches?

Mrs. Chalker: All right, I will start with the beaches. Last year we brought 264 new beaches under the EC directive. They are bathing beaches, and we have a £70 million a year programme to bring them all up to standard by 1995. The hon. Gentleman need only look at what happens in other parts of the Community. There have been problems with pollution not just in this country but in many others too. We are taking action on that problem.
We are also taking action to ensure full compliance with the directive on drinking water. I was sorry to hear that in the area in which the hon. Gentleman lives there is a problem with lead in pipes. However, he should know that it was this Government who put a major replacement programme for lead pipes into action. It was not the predecessor Labour Government. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that we are opposed to improvement in environmental standards.
I could turn to a number of other areas, but I will not detain the House. The hon. Gentleman knows what they are.

Mr. Robertson: What about Mr. David Williamson?

Mrs. Chalker: I shall come to Mr. David Williamson in a moment. How could I deny the House an opportunity to discuss the new Secretary-General of the Commission?
I want to turn to the single market because many hon. Members have referred to its importance. However, one or two hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Hamilton, have expressed their fears about the implications for the development of the single market. He also made some welcome remarks, which I especially noted because they show all the influence that he has had on his party in their new document, which he is now allowed to talk about in the House.
It is interesting to note just how much effort is being made—the hon. Gentleman criticised this—by the Department for enterprise—the Department of Trade and Industry—to make British business men truly aware of the opportunities. If we did not have a campaign and if every other Community country was campaigning for the benefits of the single market, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain, saying, "Why aren't we in there making business men aware? Why aren't we doing exactly what needs to be done to make British industry, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, aware of the opportunities?"
In our campaign about the single market, we have taken up and tried to progress the issues that can be progressed and have cut out some of the lengthy debate in


which the people who opposed some of the ideas behind the single market were not opposing it because they opposed the idea, but were using it as a bargaining counter for other issues. That is why we have preserved the requirement in the Single European Act for unanimity where we need it, but have agreed to qualified majority voting where that would advance the interests of the United Kingdom. It is right that we should advance the single market wherever we can, and that is what we are doing.
We can see the impact that qualified majority voting can have. At the end of last year we were able to adopt a significant passage of reforms to liberalise civil aviation. After years of haggling over insurance matters, the advent of qualified majority voting brought us to the point where we are about to adopt measures to enable British insurance firms to compete throughout the Community. Of course, it is a two-way process and other people will compete with British firms, but the areas in which we make the most progress and where the most progress has so far been made are those where Britain is most competitive. We want to take those steps clearly and firmly, so that British business can benefit from advances in the European Community.
British business and industry in the late 1980s is very different from 10 years ago. I am sad that Opposition Members too often draw on their record of failure to make gloomy predictions about the impossibility of success. The Government and the British people have proved them wrong time and time again and we shall do so in the great internal market debate and in the development of the single market, which is giving the people of Europe real and new chances for the future.
I turn now to the Secretary-General of the Commission, David Williamson, who was an excellent civil servant in this country for many years. I suppose that I now have to say that anybody who works for the Commission can afford to take a relaxed view of financial considerations. I am sure that Opposition Members will not have forgotten that we are one of only three net contributors to the EC budget. We owe it to our taxpayers to redress the balance. If that is what the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley means when he says that we have a "cash register" approach, so be it. I have more and wider comments to make about the approach of the single market. When we attended the Brussels European Council in February, it was this country that was prepared for a large increase in the structural funds and a balance in benefits for newer members of the Community. This country believes in the regional fund and the social fund.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) mentioned her anxiety about her priority plans for the area that she represents. I cannot accept that when we have worked for improvements in the structural and social funds, we will not benefit, so I looked through the figures. This country can expect to be the largest beneficiary of the social fund this year. That may come as a surprise to some of my hon. Friends, but I can say firmly that our receipts from the social fund will be about £400 million and that our total receipts from all the funds will rise to about £1 billion per year by 1993, from about £750 million now. The special problems of the far-off regions have been recognised—

Mr. Foulkes: The far-off regions?

Mrs. Chalker: The Highlands and Islands, northern Scotland and so on. The special problems of those regions have been recognised in the debates and discussions that are taking place at present.
The areas that have been affected by the decline of the traditional industries will also be remembered through both the regional and the social funds. The resources of the social fund are being used to tackle unemployment, especially youth and long-term unemployment, wherever it occurs. Rural areas that are too prosperous to qualify for support under objective 1 of the regional fund will, because of their remoteness, be included in a different way. That is why we have been pressing for those regions to continue to qualify for support from all three structural funds under objective 5(b) for developing the remote rural areas.
I cannot go into the exact case raised by the hon. Member for Redcar tonight as I want to bring my remarks to a close shortly. I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me. She knows that she is free to write to me at any time about the specific problem, which I well understand, coming also from an area that has great deprivation.
The Community has consistently taken the lead, as I said earlier, in promoting employment growth throughout the European Community. It was the December 1986 employment resolution, which was drawn up on the initiative of the United Kingdom, that set the action programme on employment growth in being. We have worked on that and given a practical lead ever since. That is why unemployment in the United Kingdom is below the EC average. We have created nearly 1·7 million jobs since 1983—more than the rest of the Community put together—and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) should note that. He should also note that we have just had the 21st successive month in which unemployment has fallen—a fall that includes the Merseyside area which both he and I represent.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North asked me earlier about the youth training scheme. We receive money from the European social fund for that and believe it to be a perfectly proper use for European social fund money.
Whether it be within the European Community or whether it be our wish to work with the nations of EFTA, and wider, the important thing is that the financial growth of the European Community should be sound so that we can help areas of the Third world and areas in our own Community that need our help.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford made an interesting speech. I particularly liked the idea, because it is one which is certainly coming, that instead of talking about the Group of Seven, we should take about three main groups in the world—the United States as a trading bloc, Japan as a trading bloc:, and Europe as a trading bloc. That is not to exclude others, but to try to bring about the stability that is so much needed in the world's economy.
I advise my right hon. Friend that the White Paper under debate draws attention to the significant development in strengthening the operating mechanisms of the EMS. We favour measures to encourage greater use of the private ecu and further co-operation between central banks. I do not share his pessimism about the liberalisation of capital movements. Major progress on that has already been made and the Commission and the present German presidency of the council have made the


liberalisation of capital movements a top priority; it will be seen to be so in the weeks leading up to the Hanover council.
In any community of sovereign member states committed to vital co-operation on policy issues, there will be continuing negotiation and argument. In the next few years we must argue about what is important to this country, and not about yesterday's issues. We must remain vigilant to ensure that reform of the CAP continues, not because it is some holy crusade but because, as technology continues to improve production techniques, so the need to return to a policy based on market forces will grow.
I welcome the Opposition's commitment to the application of market forces to the CAP. I am sorry that the conversion does not altogether apply to their approach to the single market, but they will have to learn that they cannot decry what happens with the CAP in Brussels and yet commend more Brussels direction for the conduct of the economy.
The Community is moving away from over-centralisation and regulation towards freeing up market forces across national frontiers, which is a hopeful development as we move towards 1992 and way beyond it. The climate of opinion is changing and more and more member states are giving their name and effort to developing the single market and beyond. The White Paper that we have debated tonight records a steady, undramatic process of negotiations. To some the debates may be boring, but in the past six months the negotiations referred to in the White Paper have come to a successful conclusion. There has been a new phase of opening up the development of the Community, which has everything to do with the issues that are essential to the well-being of ordinary people in this country, offering improvements for individuals through combined work within the Community. The Government will continue to argue for their interests, and it is on that basis I hope the House will accept the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on developments in the European Community, July-December 1987 (Cm. 336).

LORD CHANCELLOR'S SALARY

Resolved,
That the draft Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 5th May, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.)

HOUSING (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Housing Defects (Reinstatement Grant) (Amendment of Conditions for Assistance) (Scotland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 29th April, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7658–86 and COR 1, the Department of Employment's Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda of 3rd November 1986 and 9th May 1988 and 9928/87 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to chemical, physical and biological agents, 10662/87 and the Department of Employment's Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 16th May 1988 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work, and 4544/88 on the marketing and use of certain substances and preparations; supports the proposed directives in principle as steps towards harmonised standards for controlling harmful substances, preparations and processes; and endorses the Government's endeavour to obtain modifications in negotiations.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Question agreed to.

Settle-Carlisle Railway

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

9 pm

Mr. Eric Martlew: The rules of the House never cease to bamboozle and amaze me. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who had the Adjournment debate, made his speech at 6 am. I came in tonight prepared to wait until at least 10 pm. Not only do I find that it is only 9 o'clock, but I have a hour and a half in which to speak. I have not yet got into the habit of some other hon. Members of making as little as possible stretch as long as possible, and I do not intend to do that. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) would like to speak in the debate, so I shall not take up all the time. If other hon. Members want to contribute they should feel free to do so.
It is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that you are in the Chair, because I want first to record my thanks to you for allowing this debate to be held so quickly, this being the first time I have applied for this Adjournment debate. I suspect that you, like me, recognise the significance of the statement made by the Minister for Public Transport on Monday 16 May. It was about the Settle-Carlisle railway, and it would affect not only my constituents but people who live all along the line in Eden valley and north Yorkshire. The statement had significance for the rest of the country, too.
There is a great feeling for the line throughout the length and breadth of the country, as my postbag shows. I have had letters about the line from all over Britain saying that it should not be closed. Significantly, the Minister implied that because the line was tourist-led—more tourists use it than do local residents—it was not really a significant part of British Rail's operations and therefore could well be sent out to the private sector. The significance of that will not be lost on the House. It was said that areas other than commuter areas—for example, those in west and north Wales and in Scotland, particularly the Fort William to Mallaig line—that depend on tourism could find British Rail saying that it does not want to run them. British Rail is always saying that it does not want to run lines, and the Government have said, "But you must run them." The significance of the statement—outwith the suggestion in this week's issue of The Economist that tourist lines could be privatised—was that tourist lines could be abandoned by British Rail but would be supported by the Government. It is important that we should debate the matter tonight.
I shall concentrate on one or two incorrect statements that the Minister made on 16 May. The first is a small matter. Hon. Members will remember that the Minister refused to give way when I challenged him on one point. He said that no members of the public were present at the public meeting in Carlisle. That is perfectly true; I remember it well. But the point that he did not make was that his Department did not advertise the meeting. It is little wonder that nobody attended.
The other point that the Minister failed to make was that he met a large number of city and county councillors from Carlisle, Cumbria and Eden. As Max Boyce would say, I know because I was there. At that meeting, Cumbrian representatives told the Minister, "We want the

line kept open and under the British Rail system." There is no doubt that, when he went to Carlisle, the Minister was told that the line should stay open.
The Minister made another inaccurate statement. He said that 80 per cent. of the people travelling on the line were tourists and that that was insignificant. I do not understand why tourists are not people. Perhaps the Minister can explain. Over 30 per cent. of people travelling on the line are local residents and will be greatly affected. It is significant that, in 1983, only 90,000 people travelled on the line. In 1987, 360,000 people travelled on the line. The number of local people using the line has increased tremendously. More local people use the line now than at any time since the war. Since the closure deliberations began, eight stations have been re-opened. Local demand is strong.
The Minister incorrectly quoted the efforts being made by local authorities and the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Association to put money into the scheme. He said that local authorities had offered £500,000 as a capital sum, while withdrawing their previous annual support. That is simply not true. Instead of offering £70,000, local authorities are offering £237,000 this year, £237,000 next year, and £166,000 in 1990–91. That is a fact. I have discussed the matter with council officers. It was churlish of the Minister to denigrate the local authorities.
The local authorities feel aggrieved. They understood that the Minister got everything that he asked for. The Minister went along to the local action committee and said, "I need £500,000 to be able to save the line." After some arm-twisting, north Yorkshire local authorities came along with £500,000. The promise was confirmed by Councillor Bill Cameron, who is a great friend of mine. He had a telephone conversation with the Minister on 29 February, when he was told that £500,000 would save the line. The Minister shakes his head, but I talked to someone who was in the room when that was said.
Despite the bad blood that could well have been created by the Minister, the local authority and the action committee met yesterday and decided that they were prepared to keep their offer of £500,000 and the revenue consequences on the table and to give that money to a private organisation provided that there was no reduction in the service being provided. I hope that the Minister will consider that proposal and discuss it with the local authority. The local authority should be applauded. These are difficult times. My county council has just been within half a per cent. of being rate-capped, yet it could find a considerable amount of money for the line.
I want to look briefly at the so-called privatisation plan for the Settle-Carlisle line. Having read the leaked letter from the Secretary of State for the Environment to the Secretary of State for Transport, I think that we should call it the Ridley plan. It certainly could not be called the Mitchell plan. Many of us believe that he does not support the views put forward from the Dispatch Box on Monday 16 May. There are those hon. Members who think that he may resign over this matter. I am not one of those who had any confidence in the suggestion that the Minister would resign, but I do believe that he is not too enamoured of the plan that has been put forward.
Let us look at the plan in some detail. How much private money has been committed to it? I understand that Grand Metropolitan Hotels has put forward £25,000 and another £25,000 has been put forward by Scottish and


Newcastle Breweries. I cannot find any more money from the private sector in the statement. That makes a total of £50,000 on offer from the private sector.
Let us look at what has been offered by the public sector for the so-called privatisation. English Heritage has offered £1 million of taxpayers' money. The local authority has offered £500,000 of ratepayers' money. The Development Commission has offered £100,000—again, public money. The Countryside Commission has offered another £100,000. Then we come to the most bizarre offer of the lot from British Rail. Usually when an organisation sells something, it expects money for it. But in this case the Minister has said that British Rail is prepared to pay a dowry of, I think, £850,000. In my experience, dowries are only paid at weddings. It seems that on this occasion a dowry is to be paid for a funeral. I have never heard of that before.
Therefore, we have £50,000 from the private sector and over £2·5 million from the public sector. Despite that, there have been no takers.
In the letter dated 8 March, the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
I am sorry that we have not yet found a private organisation or trust able to take on the line.
That is despite all the public money that is available.
The fact is that under the scheme that has been outlined the line can never be viable. If it is taken outside the British Rail system, the income from the diversions on that line will be lost. I understand that there have been over 350 since the proposal to close the line was put forward. That means that there will be a loss of income. If the Settle line is lost, it will cause great inconvenience to those who travel on the west coast line. There will also be a loss of freight under the proposals put forward, so there will be a loss of income there. There is also the loss of the parcels service. We are reducing the income without putting any more in. Therefore, there is no doubt that the private sector will not be able to take that line on.
Even supposing a package could be put together, the Minister's time scale for the closure of the line by 31 March next year would mean that no package, whether private or public and private, could be put forward in that time. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South will elaborate later on whether a Bill could allow privatisation to continue.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider the timetable and extend it for a year, and that he will allow interested parties an opportunity to work together on a new package. I hope also that he will return for further discussions with the local authorities and with the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Association. Finally, I shall be grateful if the Minister can persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who will ultimately take the decision about the line's closure, to journey from the south of England and travel on the Settle-Carlisle line. Answers to parliamentary questions that I have seen show that since becoming a Minister—I do not know about before—he has not travelled on the line, even though he may ultimately take the decision for its closure.
I have not been too belligerent this evening. I hope that the Minister will accept the points that I have made about the time scale and about further discussions with the local authorities, and will say that the Secretary of State for Transport will be on the first train on Monday morning.

Mr. David Curry: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who is at the northern end of the Settle-Carlisle railway, for allowing me time to speak in his debate. He will agree with me that those of us who wish to see the line remain in existence do so not out of any party political motives. We all have links with the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Association and with the various support groups that have tried to sustain the line and find solutions to its problems. They have all placed their activities on a non-party political footing. I am a vice-president of the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Association and I know that several Opposition Members share that distinction. In our debate on how to save the railway, it is perfectly possible to have a legitimate disagreement, but not about the motives of one side or another.
I confess that, like many others, I was once a train spotter. When my family moved from the midlands to Ripon, I train-spotted at Ripon station. That was almost a definition of optimism, because almost nothing went through Ripon station—even when there was a railway line there. The one time that a Mallard went through, I missed it because I was in the waiting room at the time, to my great regret. Ripon station has now disappeared and will shortly become part of the Ripon ring road.
Everyone would acknowledge the very special status of the Settle-Carlisle railway. I must say to my hon. Friend in all honesty that I do not believe that it is useful to make comparisons between it and other railways in the United Kingdom. The Settle-Carlisle line goes through some very beautiful scenery, it is an impressive engineering achievement, and it represents a unique journey for those who make it. That journey is made through one of the United Kingdom's most dramatic industrial landscapes, and when some of the great steam engines are to be seen pulling trains across that landscape, the scene one witnesses is almost poetic.
All of us are committed to maintaining the railway, and we are all concerned about the fate of the people who work for it. In the case of my own constituents, those who work on a stretch of the line between Settle and to the north, to the Cumbrian border, are affected. We are anxious that the voluntary work undertaken at the stations on that line by the friends of the railway and by other organisations should be justified and that those people will see a return for their efforts—not in financial terms but in the sense of the line remaining in existence.
In making those comments, I speak not only for myself but for right hon. and hon. Friends representing constituencies in the north-west. They include my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), and my hon. Friends the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller). They all have a keen interest in the line and will continue working at making a success of the Government's proposals.
We must remember one salient factor, which is that British Rail wants to close the line. Sometimes, I get the impression that the Government are seeking to force a closure down the throat of a reluctant British Rail. All the arguments about the diversion of traffic from the main west coast line suggest that British Rail was anxious to


keep the line open and that the Government were hostile, but the debate starts from the point that this is a line that British Rail applied to close.
Only four options are open. The first is simply to close the line: plenty of other railways have been closed. Why not close it, take the political flak, put our heads over the parapet and be done with it, hoping that after a while people will no longer remember? After all, the A65 in my constituency, which follows the course of the Settle-Carlisle railway, is being improved substantially, so the possibility of alternative transport is real enough. That, however, is not an option that I favour, and I shall fight it, because I believe that it would renege on the character of the railway and of part of the United Kingdom's heritage.
If it were merely a question of heritage, I should be less concerned, but this is a heritage that can still be profitable as an educational, tourist and economic tool for a part of the world that is losing its traditional economic activity. Agriculture is under pressure, and tourism is now its life blood. The saving of the line is linked with other issues, such as Sunday trading, which are essential to the economic welfare of my constituency.
The second solution would be to subsidise the line. Let us simply leave it with British Rail and give British Rail some money. That would make life extremely easy for me, and for my hon. Friends. We could all defend it. After all, money is being spent to restore the Albert memorial, a piece of masonry that does not serve much purpose for anyone. The Settle-Carlisle line actually forms a useful function.
The trouble is whether it could be guaranteed that, even with the money, British Rail would continue to operate the service with good will and enthusiasm. When I have travelled on the line I have gained about as much information, and about as much sense of its uniqueness, as I did when travelling into Liverpool street from Bishop's Stortford this morning. The train was 15 minutes late, of course.
British Rail is not developing the line for tourist purposes. Passengers do not receive a scrap of information about what they are passing through. As has been said, that is not the function of the line, but perhaps it ought to be. Perhaps the ideal solution would be to allow British Rail to exploit some of its resources. Certainly it is not doing so now. Travelling on the line is about as exciting as a suburban railway journey.
The local authorities have made offers, but they have attached conditions to them, two of which I consider unfortunate. The first is that the line should continue to exist for 20 years. That is a long time, which it would be difficult to guarantee in almost any sphere of economic activity. The second is that the line should remain in the sole ownership of British Rail. In other words, that solution consists of thrusting money into British Rail and asking it to sustain a service which it has said repeatedly that it does not want to maintain. I do not think that that is a genuine solution either.
The third option is partnership between British Rail and private enterprise. But what private company will join forces with British Rail knowing that it wants to close the railway—that its heart is not in it?
So I come to the fourth solution, which is genuinely to seek to exploit the tourist potential of the line: to refound it on an entirely new basis, which means finding entirely new capital. This is why I adopt the solution of privatisation. I do not adopt it out of any sense of

ideology, or because I assume that the line must come into the private sector, or because I feel any instinctive hostility to the public sector. I do so because I think that in these circumstances privatisation offers the best long-term future for the line to exploit its tourist potential and the various stations and other assets associated with it.
I should like to make several points very forcefully to the Minister. First, the passenger traffic figures have been improving consistently, and I am not convinced by British Rail's argument that there is bound to be some ceiling on that traffic. That depends on the facility and the frequency of the service which it provides on that railway. If it was operated with a view to its potential, there would be more traffic.
Secondly, what happens now? Is the Minister sitting at his office waiting for people to knock on the door and ask to buy the line? It is not clear what is to happen now. I have not had outlined—at least to my satisfaction—a structure of welcome for private investment. Given the time scale put forward, it is incumbent on the Government to outline what structures for the reception of private capital and for privatisation are envisaged. Otherwise, people will not know what they are bidding for or in what they are being asked to become involved.
In other privatisations certain dowries have been given. One recalls the recent merger between Rover and British Aerospace in which there was a significant write-off of debt which can only be described as a dowry. There was a similar massive write-off of debt in the privatisation of British Airways.
I hope that there will be no ideological opposition to the proposal. If things are ready to go but require a little assistance, I hope that there will be no ideological opposition to finding that little bit extra to get the railway line up and running as a private enterprise.
I agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle that the time scale is short. I impress on the Minister the urgent need to extend the deadlines so that there is genuinely sufficient time to discuss the structures of the privatised operation so that the first bidder will not be the only bidder and that we can genuinely try to get this bold scheme off the ground.
Above all, we need the Government's active proselytisation of the project. I understand that up to now the Minister has been occupying a quasi-judicial role in adjudicating British Rail's application for closure, and that he could not simultaneously canvass for private enterprise capital. That would have been at odds with the function which he had to fulfil. However, now we know the direction in which we are going, unless the Government are willing to sell the project and to canvass for it along with my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members who will be doing the same, how will potential buyers have the confidence that we have our hearts in the project and that we are determined to set up this line with a new future rather than see it condemned to a lingering demise?
I say most forcefully that in the north-west we are committed to saving the railway. We attach not only a psychological value to the railway—although one should never underestimate psychology in political and economic affairs. We attach a material importance to it. We believe that it can become the spinal column of the tourist development of the north-west route through the dales and into the Lake District. We consider that it is an asset waiting to be developed and used. We call urgently upon the Government to put their shoulder to that very


adventurous project so that we have a Settle-Carlisle railway which has a future and which can serve local people and be a catalyst to the economic development of that region. If that happens, I and my children will live to see the Mallard and the Sir Nigel Gresham hauling those trains across the Ribblehead viaduct, and train spotters of the future will be able to watch the great engineering achievements of this country in action.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). When the Minister announced that he was minded to close the line, the hon. Member welcomed that announcement. That seems at odds with his avowed claim to want the railway to run. It is also extraordinary that he rejects all forms of subsidy, but he does not mind the commuter lines in London and the south-east and virtually every other public passenger service that British Railways operates being subsidised.
The line is not the private pleasure railway that the Minister suggested in his announcement on 16 May. It is the last main line to Scotland. It is a major part of the main line route comprising 72 miles of double track. To close it would be an act of organised corporate vandalism as a result of a conspiracy between British Rail management and the Government, who are holding a pistol to British Rail's head.
The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said that if British Rail wants to close a line, we should accede to its request. That would be a dangerous precedent. There are other railways that British Rail management might find it inconvenient to run. If it goes along to the Minister and says that it wants to close a line, the Minister is supposed to have a duty to look at considerations other than the convenience of British Rail management.
The Settle-Carlisle railway should be retained as part of British Rail. As I have said, criticisms can be advanced against British Rail, but if the Government refuse closure and require it to operate the line and to provide money for some of the structures, it is the only body with the expertise and competence necessary to operate a line of such length and complexity and with such massive structures.
The Minister says that British Rail cannot promote tourism—although it promotes railway services for tourists year in, year out—yet the fact is that, as the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon conceded, since 1983 passenger journeys have soared from 93,000 to 300,000 per annum. The reason for that is that British Rail appointed a man to organise the closure of the line. In fact, he was enthusiastic about keeping it and he promoted it with vigour and verve.
I wish that British Rail had used some of the £250,000 that it spent on Filofaxes and free British Rail car park passes for hon. Members on promoting the Settle-Carlisle line. Hon. Members are cosseted enough. That money would have been a real boon to tourism. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon objects to the subsidy from British Rail that has been handed to him in the form of a free car park pass and a £70 Filofax.

Mr. Curry: I have not had them.

Mr. Cryer: If the hon. Gentleman has not received his car park pass and Filofax, they are probably on their way, because my understanding is that every hon. Member will receive them.
If British Rail has the resources, it can promote railway lines extremely effectively in conjunction with such sympathetic bodies as the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Railway Association. I should like to pay tribute to that association because over the years, as a voluntary unpaid organisation, it has given up untold hours to organise meetings to promote the line and to keep it in the front of people's minds. It helped the development of increased passenger revenue and increased use of the line. Such an association is not unique to the Settle-Carlisle railway. Such bodies operate on other lines and it is a way in which people can become involved and help British Rail. That association has helped to promote a magnificent railway.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has mentioned the difficulties of the Government in finding a private body to take over the line. The Secretary of State for the Environment wrote a confidential letter on 8 March which has been a boon to those who want to retain the line. In the letter he said:
I am sorry that we have not yet found a private organisation or trust able to take on the line.
Therefore, the Government have been looking. At least one major civil engineering firm has been involved in some sort of negotiation with British Rail midland region over the past few years.
On 16 May the Minister claimed that the revenue under British Rail was about £1 million per annum and that operating costs were £2·7 million. He said that the railway was costing a lot of money and that the Secretary of State was minded to close it. The revenue estimated by the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Railway Association is £1·725 million, which is rather different from the figure that British Rail has produced. BR excludes revenue from diversions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle has pointed out, there were more than 300 in the past fiscal year. Again, BR disputes the figure, but BR has not been watching the trains from its management suite. The members of the association have done that scrupulously.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): So that I have the figure correctly, could the hon. Gentleman repeat the level of expenditure that is claimed?

Mr. Cryer: Yes. The association says that the revenue is £1·725 million. BR excludes revenue from diversions. There were more than 300 of them in the previous fiscal year. I am told, although I think it is incredible, that the figure also excludes revenue collected by guards from tickets sold on trains. I have no confirmation of that, although I understand that the revenue is put into the general pool of BR revenue.
Revenue from other BR regions has not been satisfactorily defined by BR. For example, fares paid by passengers travelling from London to Leeds are not credited if the passengers go on to the Settle-Carlisle railway by joining a Carlisle train at Leeds. The fares are not suitably credited by BR in order to increase the revenue of the line. The friends association says that they should be allotted to the Settle-Carlisle railway because they stimulate traffic to and from the line from other parts of the United Kingdom. That is agreed by all of us, but how much revenue is in issue? BR has the figures. An


expert of the Settle-Carlisle association has asked BR for the details, and provided information, but BR has been somewhat reluctant to give such figures.
The Minister would do well to remember that the story of the line starts from the attitude of British Rail. We understand that BR is under financial pressure, and is therefore looking for some service that it can cut out to diminish costs. BR diverted the London to Glasgow express several years ago and ran them from Nottingham to Glasgow. Then BR stopped those routes and diverted trains away from Leeds and through Manchester. The largest source of revenue from the Nottingham to Glasgow express run was via Leeds. That source of revenue is no longer available to BR.
The diversion of freight trains is done to remove revenue and not, as BR claims in its financial case, to close the Settle-Carlisle railway, because of air brake train load operation. That factor does not make very much difference, because the Settle-Carlisle line is able to take all classes of trains, air brake-operated as well as unfitted and fitted freights. They can all operate well over the line.
BR says that the access Blackburn to Hellifield route has a long-term future for freight traffic. It would have an even better future if it was linked to a long-term freight future for the Settle-Carlisle line.
The Minister gave the operating costs as £2·7 million, whereas in its December 1986 financial case for the closure of the line BR gave a figure of £778,600. I dare say that the Minister has incorporated in his figure an annual allowance for replacement or maintenance of track and structures.
The comparison with other railways that the Minister quoted on 16 May was fallacious. The North York moors and the Severn valley railways are roughly 15 miles long apiece. They are operated largely by volunteers with only a skeleton paid staff. Both lines operate under a light railway order. The Minister does not yet know, although I have questioned him extensively, whether the privatised Settle-Carlisle line will operate under a light railway order or a Private Bill that is promoted through the House. If he is making the comparison with the North York moors railway, say, and proposing that it should be considered for light railway operation, that means that he is considering a 140-mile round trip at an average speed of about 24 miles an hour—not exactly the most stimulating of journeys for a day out for a family.
The Settle-Carlisle is a 144-mile round trip railway and any prospective purchaser will obtain 21 viaducts, 14 tunnels and 325 bridges. They take some maintaining. As part of the national network, with diverted traffic and through traffic, that can be justified, but I beg leave to doubt that any private organisation would be willing to take over a total of 21 viaducts, 14 tunnels and 325 bridges. It is something of a tall order
I know something about operating railways. I was the founder of the Keighley and Worth Valley light railway. I have done every job on a railway, from cleaning out the toilets to plate laying to driving an engine such as the Evening Star. There simply is no comparison between operating a 10-mile round trip, even on a full-scale main line standard railway, and a 150-mile round trip on a railway that is notorious for its gradient up the summit at Aisgill. That sort of arrangement, it seems to me, cannot possibly be carried out under the amateur status of the railways that the Minister has proposed.
If this fanciful notion were adopted, the Settle-Carlisle could take men and women, materials and locomotives on to its track at the expense of existing established preserved railways such as the one between Keighley and Oxenhope, the one near Skipton, the North York Moors railway, and so on. There simply are not the locomotives and the experienced personnel to go round for the sort of scheme that the Minister has in mind.
From his answers to questions, the Minister does not seem to have a structured plan for the operating method, the track provision and the running rights connected with the privatisation. There is the notion, for instance, of British Rail taking out all the long-welded track. That would have to be replaced, so the proposed dowry from British Rail is not all that good. The Minister has a department, the railway inspectorate, which looks at track, because the weight of the track determines the running speed of the line and the axle load of the locomotives that go over it. If the weight of the rail is diminished, that places a permanent way restriction on the railway and means that the running speed of trains is reduced, which makes the journey potentially rather boring, as the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon says he has experienced.
Where would the locomotives, for example, be maintained? The Department of Transport and the railway inspectorate rightly demand high standards of safety, and that means locornotive maintenance, carriage sheds and workshops. The Minister's own departmental inspectorate would not allow steam locomotives to operate into Carlisle under the electrified system because steam locomotives and overhead wires are kept separate.
So there are all these enormous operating problems, which do not exist if the line stays part of British Rail, because British Rail has the operating facilities and it is part of a through network. The enormous investment in maintenance facilities and locomotives that would be required in a privatisation scheme is not, of course, required for operation by British Rail.
We are talking about a railway that is providing about 300,000 or 350,000 passenger journeys each year. We agree that the railway has been used extensively for diversions when the west coast route has been closed for repairs, maintenance or blockages. I understand that the proposal to widen the west Cumbria line for diversions has been scrapped by British Rail. British Rail has tried desperately not to use the Settle-Carlisle line for diversions, but I have in my mind a timetable of diversions over the Settle-Carlisle line because of work on the west coast route, which was expensively electrified several years ago. If the Settle-Carlisle line is closed, passengers can expect to spend a minimum of one and a half to two hours on a bus journey between Carlisle and Preston. If it is a busy period, such as holiday time, and there is a breakdown, they can look forward to spending many more hours in a bus on the M6 between Carlisle and Preston.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon that more time is needed to consider the hardship circumstances, about which the Minister has said that he is returning to the transport users consultative committee to obtain further evidence. Since the TUCC hearings commenced, there has been a change in the pattern of diesel multiple unit provision, which has been helped by local authorities. As the figures show, more people are using the trains, which means that there is potential for more hardship


arising from closure. I hope that the Minister will say that he is willing to give more time to the TUCC, if it requires it, to ensure that it obtains correct and adequate information.
The local authorities are interested, deeply involved and want the line to be retained. They are governed by financial considerations, but have, as the Minister rather scathingly acknowledged on 16 May, said that they are prepared to help by giving £500,000. As I understand it, there have been no negotiations about whether the local authorities were prepared to modify the conditions that they attached to the giving of that £500,000. They are willing to consider conditions such as an all-year-round service, frequency of services to be at least the same, journey times to be approximately the same, and any altered railway ownership to be subject to proper TUCC procedures, with the line remaining an integral part of the national railway service, with no separation and division. The local authorities have spent many hours and much money promoting the railway and are willing to enter into negotiations with the Department of Transport to consider what developments can be made, bearing in mind the amount of money that they can provide is limited.
If the Minister is saying that the Settle-Carlisle line is predominately a tourist one, that therefore it is subject to different criteria and should be closed if we cannot get a body to promote tourism more effectively than British Rail, I warn hon. Members representing other constituencies that there are lines with greater tourist participation than the Settle-Carlisle line. About 90 per cent. of the passengers carried on the Kyle of Lochalsh-Inverness line are tourists. According to the Yorkshire Post, other routes in north Wales, Devon and Cornwall carry more tourists than the Settle-Carlisle line. What will happen if British Rail says that it does not like running those lines because they carry tourists—who, after all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle said, are people? The Minister and the Government are supposed to be promoting tourism and leisure. They keep saying that we are receiving increased overseas earnings from tourism. Here is an opportunity to retain a railway that is enjoyed by a number of tourists, but between 30 and 40 per cent. of its passengers are local people.
The Minister said that only 20 per cent. of the passengers were local and therefore subject to hardship. The Friends of the Settle to Carlisle Railway Association believes that the figure is much closer to 30 per cent. and, indeed, on the top side of that. As the Minister knows, people who travelled on the now successful Dales Rail trains, which were introduced in 1975, were included—after considerable argument—in the category of those who were entitled to object on the grounds of hardship.
We must bear in mind that the Settle-Carlisle railway runs through some wild and beautiful country, from the Aisgill summit into the softer country in the Eden valley. If that railway is closed, the number of cars and buses will increase, to the point where the very countryside which people visit to enjoy is changed. People do not want that to happen. The car has given people great freedom and enjoyment but they recognise that it causes enormous problems. One problem is the changing shape of the countryside because of the needs of the motor car, which,

incidentally, are extremely expensive. Access by rail is speedy and unobtrusive and will not destroy the countryside that people want to see.
As the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon pointed out, people travel on the Settle-Carlisle line and enjoy it. What is wrong with that? The Minister spoke with a light sneer as though it were just a railway for archaelogical historians. It is a beautiful and entrancing line. We spend much money on retaining artistic treasures. The magnificent Tate gallery is down the road and the national gallery and national portrait gallery are at the end of Whitehall. They cost a lot of money and are subsidised. Every local authority has a subsidised museum because such museums contain things created by men and women that we like to enjoy. The Settle-Carlisle line is in that category.
Thousands of people helped to build the line and run it and devoted their lives to it. It is a thing of beauty. We should not be afraid of saying that people who ride on the line enjoy the sensation. We should welcome that and say that, for that reason and because of vandalism in the 1950s and 1960s, when anything vaguely Victorian in construction was replaced, it should be preserved. We recognise the achievements of many of our forebears, and the Settle-Carlisle line certainly falls into that category.
The Department of Transport—some would call it the Department of Road Transport because of its apparently careless attitude towards railways—is prepared to spend £750 million to allow increased lorry weights, which are soon to be demanded by the EEC as we move towards the internal market of 1992. Apparently, the Department baulks at a relatively small sum for the Settle-Carlisle line. British Rail's financial case for closure put at £420,000 a year the cost for renewal of track and structures.
I emphasise the fact that this railway provides for local people and for tourists. It is a spendid, beautiful railway. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and I were downcast by the thought that this railway could come to an end, abandoned, a wilderness, without any use beyond a few photographs of what once was. This country has abandoned 13,000 route miles of passenger railway. This has gone too far. The Minister talks about a major main line railway being up for closure. I believe that the railway can have a useful place.
British Rail is the best body to operate the line. I accept that there is a case for other bodies to develop and promote the railway in conjunction with British Rail, so I accept that the Minister has a point when he says that other organisations can assist. The line must be part of British Rail; I have mentioned many of the operational difficulties that would arise otherwise.
I believe that together, the local authorities, the Friends of the Settle to Carlisle Railway Association and British Rail can make the future of this magnificent railway something worth looking forward to. The Friends of the Settle to Carlisle Railway Association has offered to help develop a scheme, and I think it has much merit.
I hope that the Minister will find it possible to suggest a longer period to consider the problems and the retention of the railway. I hope that he will say that he wants to keep the railway and that he agrees that, given time, good will and proper negotiations with the local authorities, that aim can be achieved.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The time constraints on Adjournment debates are usually much tighter than they are tonight. I had certainly intended to attend the debate but I had not expected to have an opportunity to speak, and I am grateful for that.
It is significant that the Government Whip who has been there throughout our proceedings, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), has a considerable interest in the line. Furthermore, the Government Chief Whip, who also sat through most of the debate, has an indirect interest in the subject, as his constituency is on the Blackburn-Hellifield line.
When the Minister made his statement, I said that people would be more than disappointed by it. I thought that to use that word would be to understate the feelings of those interested in the line and in railways in general, and I was absolutely right. Many people have expressed their views to me in very strong terms. Many believe that in his statement the Minister was really saying that the line would close, although he did not put it so bluntly, and that he was proposing an option that might not be realised. I do not believe that that is what he was doing; I hope it was not.
The package could perhaps work, but I do not believe that it is the right or the best solution. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who has a great knowledge of these matters, have explained clearly why it is not the best option to pursue. I have written to the Minister on the subject many times in the past few years because it is a matter of great concern and interest in Lancashire. STELLA—the Support the East Lancashire Line Association—which has a considerable interest in that line and now in the Roses line connecting Preston with Yorkshire, also strongly supports the Settle-Carlisle Line.
I hope that the Minister will think again and come forward with more positive proposals. I hope that he will place a requirement on British Rail to maintain the line and provide it with assistance to do so. We must consider the needs of those who live along the line. I do not believe that bus substitution would be the right solution—at least at certain times of the year. For those who live along it, the railway is a lifeline, and they have a right to ask that it be maintained.
My hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle and for Bradford, South mentioned diversions, as I did when I questioned the Minister earlier this month. We know that it does happen on occasions. We know that the figure of 300 diversions has been disputed by British Rail. However, whatever the figure is, it is clear that, if that diversion is not available, the west coast line at certain times of the year will have major problems—the failure of power lines or the weather over Shap or other things—which will cause difficulties without a diversion.
The Minister said that that would be a matter for negotiation, but it depended on the right track being available to run the rolling stock that British Rail would have available. I do not believe that that is an adequate solution, because we need to be sure that British Rail has that diversion available in its ownership to use when it needs it. Those are two important points.
The other important point is tourism.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment lapsed without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Pike: All the areas in the north are becoming much more tourist-oriented. It is an area of potential. In Lancashire and Yorkshire, we believe that it is something that we can develop to create jobs and prosperity in the area. We must also accept, because of our weather and other things, that we are not talking in the main of people coming for long-stay holidays, but are examining targeted package holidays—for example, to Bronte land in Haworth, which is not far from the Settle-Carlisle line and my constituency. Many other industrial heritage sites in Yorkshire and Lancashire could attract tourism. Withou.t any doubt, the Settle-Carlisle line can be one of those attractions. It is a remarkable engineering feat of the Victorian era. It passes through beautiful scenery. We should develop it to its full potential.
The Minister trod a dangerous path when he implied that British Rail was not the appropriate body to be involved in developing a tourist attraction and was riot interested in tourism. Hon. Members have said that there are other lines to which that argument could be directed. I believe that we must tell British Rail that it has a job to make that line and develop its tourist potential to the full. It could form a vital part of the attractions in the north-west regions, in Lancashire, Yorkshire and Cumbria. It could at the same time provide that vital fallback of a diversionary route. It would also play an essential role as a lifeline for the people who live on the route through which it passes.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I am glad we have had the opportunity to discuss the Settle-Carlisle line. As a number of points have been made during the course of the debate, I will deal with them in the sequence in which they were raised.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) follows in the footsteps of his predecessor, who used to sit frequently at that end of the Chamber and constantly raise with me the question of the Carlisle-Settle line, rather than the Settle-Carlisle line. I understand why he should follow in his predecessor's footsteps in that way.
The hon. Members for Carlisle and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to the number of tourists using the line, and various references that I had made to the fact that they exceed local transport needs. They suggested that that meant that all the rural lines were at risk, and especially mentioned lines in Scotland. I shall give them some reassurance. First, I have recently talked to the general manager of ScotRail, who tells me that he has no proposals to bring forward any long rural lines to be closed in Scotland. I was up there last week and know that. that is the latest news on that situation.
I should add that I went to the west Highland line for the signing of a contract between Alcan and British Rail, which flowed from section 8 payments in excess of El million which I had sanctioned. The fact that that investment has been made in that line and, moreover, in new sidings and rolling stock, and that radio signalling has, just been installed on the line involving considerable investment, is as good an indication of the long-term security of that line as it is possible to give. I hope that hon.


Members will not wish to frighten people in other parts of the country by suggesting that there are any parallels. I give that assurance in relation to Scotland.

Mr. Cryer: The line that the Minister is talking about was considered for closure by British Rail, which shows how wrong it was about that line. I hope that that is a parallel for the Settle-Carlisle line.

Mr. Mitchell: As a debating point, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that, but I do not think that it takes us much further forward.

Mr. Martlew: The Minister has given an assurance about Scotland, but two other areas have been mentioned in the debate. One is the west country—Devon and Cornwall—and the other is north and west Wales, and their problems. Will the Minister give that assurance to those two areas also?

Mr. Mitchell: I can only say that I have no proposals from British Rail for closures in those areas. I just happened to make it my business while I was in Scotland to find out whether there are any such proposals. Therefore, I can give a positive assurance in that respect. I am perfectly open and frank with the House, that such matters are for British Rail to bring forward if it feels that a line does not warrant being kept open. I am not aware of any proposals in the Department at present in respect of Wales or Devon.
In relation to the meeting in Carlisle to which the hon. Member for Carlisle referred, I should reply that nobody turned up. If my recollection is correct, the meeting was called by the local authority. It was certainly not called by my Department. The other meetings which were called in the same way and on the same day at the moot hall in Appleby, and in Settle, were well attended. I have vivid recollections of the extremely careful and well organised way in which the meeting at the moot hall in Appleby was conducted by the town's mayor, with each section of the community having a spokesman brought forward to explain the effect that the closure of the line would have on that part of the local community—whether young people, the middle-aged, the elderly, and so on. That was part of the consultation process at an early stage. My recollection is that the interest in Carlisle was not as great along the line, but perhaps that is not wholly surprising.
The hon. Member for Carlisle claimed that I was inaccurate in my assertion that 80 per cent. of the users of the line were not using it for normal transport purposes. I refer him to the information provided as a result of researches by Cumbria county council. Table 8 refers to "journey purposes for all trains" and shows 1·4 per cent. using it to and from work; during work, 2·1 per cent.; to and from education 2·4 per cent.; shopping and personal reasons, 6·4 per cent.; and social visits, 7·5 per cent. I make that 19·8 per cent. So perhaps I should not have said that 80 per cent. of those who use the line are leisure travellers because those using it for other purposes—to and from holiday, for instance—all add up to the 80 per cent. I am perhaps slightly inaccurate—there is a 0·9 per cent. figure for other purposes. I cannot know exactly what those are—

Mr. Martlew: The point I was making was that the latest figures show that 30 per cent. are local. I said that, since the closure debate began, eight stations had been reopened and were used by local people.

Mr. Mitchell: I am very much aware of that. It is one reason why we have asked for a restatement by British Rail of the financial case up until November and the TUCC is to consider any new evidence of hardship. That would give an up-to-date position. The hon. Member for Carlisle is perfectly correct, that we must presume that the figures have changed since the closure was first proposed. It is right that the case should be updated by British Rail.
I turn next to the local authorities' offer. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Carlisle and for Bradford, South for saying that the local authorities are prepared to be more flexible than they were when they announced their position. As yet, they have not come to me, so I do not know the degree of flexibility to which the hon. Member for Carlisle is privy. However, in due course we shall learn more about that and there will be time for the Secretary of State to take it into account, along with other matters.
I understand why the local authorities feel aggrieved. The following are the stringent conditions on their contribution:
that British Rail continue to maintain and operate the line; that the line's future be guaranteed for … at least 20 years: that the contributions are a 'one off' payment and that no further requests for financial support should be made; that the Revenue Support contributions already agreed for the next two years will not be extended beyond that period.
It is significant that the local authorities' generosity was watered down by these conditions, but it would not be fair to say that their restrictions were the determining factor.
The contributions from the private sector have not been as great as we had expected at one time, so we must take into account both the fact that the local authorities hedged their terms with such severe conditions and the fact that the number of contributions that it was thought at one time would come from the private sector have not done so. I should take this opportunity of saying that there has been more generosity in this respect than the hon. Member for Carlisle allowed. He said that there had been two offers of £25,000, but Hansard for 16 May shows that there were generous offers from

"BACMI Members:
ARC Ltd., Chipping Sodbury, Avon
Tilcon Ltd., Knaresborough, North Yorkshire
Hargreaves Quarries Ltd., Pickering, North Yorkshire
Castle Cement Ltd., Peterborough, Cambridgeshire".
—[Official Report, 16 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 684.]

A large number of members of FeRFA, too, are in the business of supplying a form of material that is significantly involved in structural renovation. In addition to that, there are contributions from BarFab Reinforcement of Smethwick, British Steel Corporation, Redcar in Cleveland, and Servicised Ltd. of Slough, Berkshire. There is a long list. I pay tribute to them and the members of FeRFA which are prepared to provide materials at reduced cost towards repair of the Ribblehead viaduct. That significant capital expenditure led British Rail to bring forward the closure proposal in the first place.
We are inviting the TUCCs to give us up-to-date information on hardship during the course of the summer and to state how they think that guaranteed alternative bus routes can best be provided. It may be that the provision of a bus service from Settle to Giggleswick, which is not far—I have walked it—would be one way of helping at the Settle


end of the line, and that a service from Appleby to Penrith, where one picks up the fast electric trains on the west coast main line to Carlisle, would be a considerable help to Appleby. The length of journey time—part of the way by bus and then by the high-speed train—from Penrith to Carlisle is not much different from the slow journey time on the Settle-Carlisle line from Appleby into Carlisle.
There are options. I inform my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and those who are involved in journeys between Appleby and Settle that there may well be some difficulties in finding any suitable alternative, but, on average, only about half a dozen people a day make that journey. It is difficult to justify spending well over £1 million on that item of hardship. I have received several letters, and I shall of course carefully examine the cases in which hardship is involved.
The hon. Member for Carlisle referred to the British Rail dowry. He suggested that it was normally given at weddings and that this matter sounded more like a funeral. I could not disagree more. It appears to me that there is a prospect—I go no further, because these are early days—of a wedding between the private and public sectors. The House would welcome that.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about loss of income from British Rail diversioons. That matter is yet to be played for. If the line is useful to British Rail as a diversionary route—it says that it is not essential to it—presumably it has a price. That price could be negotiated between a private sector successor company and British Rail for the availability of the line for diversion purposes.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to freight. A freight service currently operates to the gypsum private siding at Newbiggin and the Ministry of Defence siding at Warcop near Appleby. They are served from Carlisle.
As long as British Rail Freight has a use for those sidings and for that service on that line, and as long as that is a viable proposition for British Rail Freight, there is no reason why, if Cumbria county council wishes to negotiate with British Rail for the running of a service at its own cost between Carlisle and virtually Appleby, which is where those sidings come to, there is no reason why it should not do so. But that is not a matter where the generality of taxpayers should be asked to foot the bill if it is shown—studies are to be provided by the TUCC—that another alternative by bus and train is equally good. The county council may not find such a proposition attractive, but at least the opportunity is there, and the hon. Gentleman would wish me to draw attention to it.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have asked me for my view about the line. Each of us has a heart and a head. My heart is with those hon. Members who would like to see the line kept open because of its scenic beauty, because of all it holds historically and because of the opportunities, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon referred, of great engines going on it and the emotion that that generates.
But at the same time one has to be hard-headed about an expenditure by British Rail of about £2·7 million a year and an income of only £1 million a year, or just under. I think that what we have proposed is the right mix of heart and head and I hope that time will demonstrate that to be the case.
Like me, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon has an obvious affection for the glorious scenery through which the line runs and the fact that it is the last great main line in Britain to be built with pick and shovel. Its history is remarkable, not least because when the

House passed the Bill to ensure that it was built, those who promoted it decided they did not want to go ahead with it because they could do a deal with what is now the west coast main line and did not want to duplicate it. But they then found that they had to go ahead because of the procedures of the House at that time.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South said that the Government were forcing British Rail to close the line. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon said that it almost sounded as if the debate was about the Government forcing British Rail to close the line. I could not deny that suggestion more forcefully. British Rail wants to close the line. My hon. Friend is right when he says that British Rail is not interested in running the line. It is not part of its network in terms of its long-distance work. It is a loss maker with a huge potential liability in the Ribblehead viaduct and with local services, demand for which is wholly inadequate to maintain the line. There is also tourism, to which I shall return.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister acknowledge that while British Rail management might be looking through the accountants' books to save every penny, the people who operate the line are dearly attached to it, spend their lives on and want to see it kept open?

Mr. Mitchell: I do not doubt that, but the reality is that those who are running British Rail do not see the line as part of their network. They have electrified the west coast main line to give a fast low-cost operation which runs broadly parallel with the line. It enables them to provide services at much lower costs than they ever could on the Settle-Carlisle line because of the low cost of operating electrified services once the high capital costs have been paid up front.
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon rightly referred to the various options. One was to close the line out of hand, which we have not done. Another was just to give the line the money—but it is very difficult to justify the level of expenditure involved against the local need. My hon. Friend also made the point that British Rail was not successfully developing the line for tourism and that it was about as exciting as a suburban ride. I have to say that I think he is right. There is enormous potential for a specialist operator.

Mr. Cryer: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Member for Bradford, South may shake his head, but he referred to the amateur efforts of lines such as that with which he has been associated. However, many lines—such as the North Yorks Moors line and the Severn Valley line—show a degree of professionalism in attracting visitors, and the hon. Gentleman should not mock them for being amateur.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mitchell: No, I have done so several times. I have a lot of ground to cover.

Mr. Cryer: I did not say what the Minister claims.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order—it is a disagreement.

Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will return to the content of his speech in a moment. I must finish dealing with the comments of my hon. Friend first—[Interruption.] I certainly did not intend to offend the hon. Gentleman, and I shall return to his comments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon was saying that one can take a horse to water but one cannot make it drink. One can give the line to British Rail but one cannot make it develop the line as a tourist attraction when British Rail does not have that skill. British Rail is in the business of conveying people from A to B, which it does increasingly effectively and efficiently. It requires a totally different skill to develop a tourist attraction—a day out for the family during which they can ride on the line and see what goes on.
My hon. Friend also asked what will happen now. He wondered whether I am just going to sit on my hands. British Rail has promised to be positive and helpful to any private sector operator coming forward with sound proposals for keeping the line open. A special project manager for that purpose will be appointed by British Rail in the next few weeks. I hope that anyone thinking of coming forward in that way will make themselves known to the project manager at the British Rail Board, Euston house, Eversholt street, London.
As to the points made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South, unfortunately the amount of time I have left does not allow me to give as much attention as I would like to the matters he raised, but I shall do my best. He queried certain figures I gave relating to revenue. British Rail says that it is currently running at just under £1 million, whereas the line's local supporters say that revenue is £1·725 million. It is that kind of detail which needs to be clarified. That is a principal reason why the Secretary of State for Transport is allowing a further

period, until the autumn, for the updating of figures, so that we may be sure what the latest position is and that a decision is not taken on figures which are out of date.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South, also claimed that fares collected by ticket collectors on the trains were not included in the revenue figure. We shall cover that point, together with the question of diversions. As to contributory revenue, British Rail takes the view that the amount of contributory revenue for conveying passengers from London, say, to Leeds before they travel on the Settle-Carlisle line is about offset by the costs which British Rail will incur in the longer term in carrying those additional passengers. The hon. Gentleman may or may not warm to that view, but it is one to which British Rail adheres very strongly.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was no comparison with the private sector operated and preserved lines. I wish to make the point absolutely clear. What British Rail identifies as the future operating costs of the line, if it is radio-signalled or single-tracked, is £2·1 million a year, less whatever contributions come in towards the Ribblehead viaduct. Let us call it £2 million a year. That is the revenue already achieved on the Severn valley line—[interruption.] We are not talking about the operating costs. British Rail can run the line with £2 million income, and Severn Valley alone can generate that sum in the private sector. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider what lies behind that, and the specialised skills that people who run the—

The Motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.